POLITICS

After the students’ demonstration on February 12, Venezuela’s most important university will again test how open the Rodríguez regime really is by talking about what they don’t want to hear: that chavismo lost the 2024 vote on a landslide, with Delcy running the economy and Jorge managing the campaign, before Maduro to stole the election.

This Saturday, on February 21st, an international event that advocates for amnesty in Venezuela will screen in 20 cities around the world the documentary that tells the story of the civilian mobilization that defended the votes and documented the results, the fraud, the people’s revolt, and the unprecedented crackdown.

In late 2024, Hacha y Machete, an activism network and communications platform composed of a multidisciplinary team of Venezuelan migrants and residents, dedicated itself to preserving the memory of what happened on July 28th and the days and months that followed. Now, it promotes the International Day for Amnesty in Venezuela with the support of organizations such as the Committee for the Liberation of Political Prisoners (CLIPPVE), the Washington Office for Latin America (WOLA), Laboratorio de Paz and Laboratorio Ciudadano, with the message of justice, not impunity. 

The documentary De Macedonia con amor reconstructs the courage of citizens and the consequences of repression. You can watch it here, or you can join the events. In Washington DC there will be a conversation sponsored by George Washington University (GWU) and WOLA, with Betilde Muñoz, director of Access to Rights at the Organization of American States (OAS); Isabella Picón, activist and PhD candidate at GWU; and Laura Dib, Director of the Venezuela Program at WOLA, at 2:00 pm at the Lindner Family Commons, on the sixth floor of the Elliot School of International Affairs (1957 E St, NW).

In Caracas, the screening will take place at FACES, seventh floor, at the Sala de Usos Múltiples (11:00 am). Let’s what happens.

Here’s the other participant cities and the schedule: 

• Mexico City: Cineclub Mar de Lava, Av. Francisco Sosa 298, Coyoacán. (01.00 pm)

• Madrid: Bar Cotorrita, Calle Santa Engracia, 33. (05.00 pm) 

• Barcelona (Spain): Ateneu El Poblet, Carrer de Nàpols, 268-270, Eixample. (6.00 pm)

• Buenos Aires: Casa Sur, Av. Diaz Velez, 4736, CABA. (04.00 pm)

• Bogotá: Diáspora Ideas Migrantes, Calle 58 #19-25 San Luis. (05.00 pm)

• Montevideo: José E. Rodó 2182, Esq. Joaquín Requena. (04.00 pm)

• Santiago de Chile: General Urriola, 624, Salón Gourmet. (06.00 pm)

• Brescia: Oratorio La Pace, Via Della Pace, 10. (08.00 pm) 

• Berlin: Die DeutSCHule, Karl-Marx-Straße 107. (08.00 pm)

• Portland OR: Independent Publishing Resource Center, 318 SE Main St. (03.30 pm)

• Bamberg: Kunigundenruhstr. 8 (Distel). (07.30 pm)

• Valencia (Spain): Jerónima Gales 16. (03.00 pm)

• Basel: La Tienda Latina, Klybeckstrasse 33. (3.00 pm)

• Alicante: Calle Garbinet, 67. (06.00 pm)

• Mar del Plata: San Luis 2745, Proyecto Bar. (04.00 pm)

• Torino: Sala Polivalente, Via G. Giolitti 21. (03.00 pm)

WASHINGTON — Before a Mt. Rushmore-like painting of seven revered and deceased black heroes, a tuxedoed Bill Clinton stood in a darkened hall recently to describe himself to an audience of black Americans.

The 10-minute speech by the Democratic presidential nominee to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Dinner in Washington expressed a simple, direct and unspoken–though clearly understood–contrast to the last 12 years. Clinton did not have to spell out a course of action to win their support.

Rather, he swore to the 4,000 black diners that if they helped him fulfill his quest to win the presidency, he would provide “full participation, full partnership” in a Clinton White House.

“If I change my address, I will only be a tenant there,” he said. “You still own the place, and I want you to act like it.”

For Clinton, the moment was special only because it occurred in the harsh glare of a spotlighted public gathering. More typical of his efforts to court black support was the private, closed-door fundraiser held hours earlier and a few blocks away at a downtown Washington art museum. That reception, hosted by some 60 affluent black American business owners, produced $600,000 for the Arkansas governor.

“This was a historic event,” Rodney Slater, one of Clinton’s top black aides, said immediately after the fund-raiser. “This represents the fact that African-Americans want to be key players in the Clinton Administration. When they can raise that kind of money–that’s more than African-Americans have ever raised for anybody–you can bet the candidate will pay attention to them.”

Like all contemporary Democratic presidential candidates, Clinton is counting on overwhelming support from the nation’s black voters to propel him to victory. But to achieve that, he has taken a significantly different approach than the party’s previous nominees.

Clinton has avoided offering himself as a benefactor of black Americans through dramatic, highly publicized appeals to them or by proposing a host of social programs. Rather, the Arkansas governor has conducted an almost stealth-like campaign within black communities, quietly collecting chits from influential leaders and middle-class blacks while limiting efforts directed at poor, ghetto-dwelling African-Americans. And in targeting middle-class blacks, he has tried to blend their political and economic concerns into the same mix of issues aimed at attracting the highly coveted white suburban voting bloc.

He has done this in order to claim a larger share of the white vote–especially suburban white males, who polls have suggested viewed previous Democratic presidential candidates as too eager to genuflect to black demands. No Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 has won a majority of the white vote, a major reason the party has lost all but one presidential election since then.

With this strategy, Clinton sought to give his campaign an inclusive middle-class cast, effectively defusing race as an issue and avoiding the need to reassure white voters that he would not unduly bend toward poor and needy blacks.

Surprisingly, as Clinton has pursued this strategy, polls have shown he has garnered increasingly enthusiastic support from black voters. A recent survey of 850 blacks by the Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies showed more than 80% giving Clinton highly favorable marks on questions of knowledge, fairness and leadership.

In fact, if there has been any genius–or luck–to Clinton’s handling of black voters, it has stemmed from amplifying the hard-edged pragmatism with which many black political leaders and their constituents approached the 1992 campaign. Minimizing conflict within their ranks, they have kept their eyes fixed on the prize: returning a Democrat to the White House. And Clinton appears to have been the beneficiary of this growing political maturity among black voters.

“We’re smart,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), one of Clinton’s earliest and most important black backers, said recently. “We know where our best interest lies. Even if it means that we campaign a little bit differently and not in the ways that we have before, we are out to win, and we can win with Bill Clinton.”

Overall, blacks make up about 1-in-6 of Clinton’s voters, according to recent polls. In the final Times national pre-election poll, released last week, he was favored by 78% of black voters, with President Bush and independent candidate Ross Perot each backed by 9%.

Many of these voters are the legacy of the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s unsuccessful 1984 and 1988 campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination, which excited political passions among blacks and swelled voter registration rolls within their communities.

Democratic nominees Walter F. Mondale in 1984 and Michael S. Dukakis in 1988 each publicly enlisted Jackson to their cause in hopes of gaining the allegiance of his followers. But while both Mondale and Dukakis harvested the vast majority of black votes cast in their respective races, neither was able to generate a huge turnout by African-Americans. That was especially apparent four years ago, when the failure of blacks to turn out in large numbers was seen as a major reason Dukakis lost close races to then-Vice President Bush in several states, including Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Missouri.

Clinton, during most of his campaign, took the alternative approach of keeping Jackson at arm’s length while beckoning an aspiring breed of black leaders to supplant him as a link to black voters.

Among the first black officials to join the Clinton cause early in the primary season–at a time when Jackson’s disdain for the Arkansas governor was undistinguished–were Reps. John Lewis of Georgia, Mike Espy of Mississippi and William J. Jefferson of Louisiana.

These three, like others, are not especially well-known nationally. But for the Clinton camp, what counts is that each commands strong and favorable name identification among blacks in their home states. And while in large measure these politicians offered their early support based on their association with Clinton as a fellow Southerner, it also reflected the new pragmatism among them.

Waters, a national co-chairwoman of the Clinton campaign, most vividly illustrates this phenomenon, given her past close ties to Jackson. Echoing countless other black elected officials, she makes clear that winning the White House is what matters to her this year, not the strategy the candidate employs to get there.

“I don’t question it at this point,” she said. “I want George Bush out of the White House so bad, I’ll buy (Clinton’s) strategy.”

Like Waters, Rep. Craig Washington (D-Texas) is unconcerned about Clinton’s primary focus on white, middle-class, suburban voters.

“He needs to go where he can get votes that I can’t get for him,” Washington said. “The fact that he doesn’t come into black churches every Sunday and that he doesn’t campaign in black communities (to avoid) turning off Joe Willie Six-Pack doesn’t bother me. He doesn’t want to send them back to help the Republicans.”

Linda Faye Williams, associate professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, said statements like those from black elected leaders–most of whom were faithful Jackson supporters in the past–reveals the “12 years of pent-up leadership hopes” among black leaders.

She also said that “many black elected officials chafed during the last two (presidential) elections over their own roles as leaders because Jesse was always the one out front. Clinton has answered their prayers by giving them room to maneuver.”

Ironically, in the campaign’s final hours, Clinton finds himself more dependent on black votes in some key states than many of his advisers anticipated. As many polls have shown the race tightening, the Arkansas governor’s fate appears increasingly tied to a heavy turnout among traditional Democratic constituencies, including blacks.

That’s especially true in two key regions. It appears Clinton needs a high black turnout in the Midwestern battleground states of Michigan and Ohio–where blacks cast 8% and 12%, respectively, of the votes four years ago–and in such hotly contested Southern states as Georgia and Louisiana, where blacks constituted about a fifth of the vote in 1988.

These political realities have helped lead to a rapprochement between Clinton’s campaign and Jackson. The campaign is hoping Jackson can help spur a big turnout among blacks for the Democratic ticket. And the civil rights leader, for his part, is quietly cooperating in hopes of gaining clout.

Meanwhile, some blacks have remained lukewarm toward Clinton, worrying that his campaign strategy will serve only to get him elected without demonstrating a real commitment to helping poor blacks. These leaders were distressed that the well-publicized bus tours that helped define the Clinton campaign immediately after the summer’s Democratic National Convention focused on small towns and rural America, where the crowds were made up mostly of white faces.

“We’re going to have to put a lot of pressure on Brother Clinton once he gets in the White House,” said Cornell West, director of Afro-American studies at Princeton University. “I hope he wins, but I recognize he’s not a true warrior for our cause.”

After a flurry of complaints that the campaign was avoiding black voters and ignoring their issues, Clinton’s staff squeezed in time for him to campaign a few weeks ago with a delegation of black congressional leaders as they barnstormed several Southern states in a get-out-the-vote effort sponsored by the Democratic National Committee.

Still, the bus trip failed to quell all of the concerns. Even some of those who joined in the journey dubbed it “The Back of the Bus Tour.”

Reporting from Sacramento — For all of the unprecedented elements of President Trump’s federal budget plans, there’s an item buried in the list of detailed spending cuts that has a familiar, contentious political legacy in California.

Trump has proposed canceling federal government subsidies to states that house prisoners and inmates who are in the U.S. illegally. He’s not the first president to try it, and undoubtedly will get an earful from states like California.

For sheer bravado, the award for defending that subsidy probably goes to former Gov. Pete Wilson. In a letter sent to federal officials in 1995, two days after Christmas, Wilson threatened to drop off one of the state’s undocumented prisoners — in shackles, no less — on the doorstep of a federal jail. (He never actually did it.)

“The intent of federal law is unequivocal,” Wilson wrote about the subsidy program. “The federal government must either reimburse the state at a fair rate for the incarceration of any undocumented inmate which it identifies or… take the burden of incarceration off the state’s hands.”

Wilson had won a second term the year before, with a blistering campaign attacking illegal immigration. His time in office was also marked by persistent state budget problems, and the money mattered. The state never got as much as it wanted, though, and years of squabbles followed over the fate of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, established as part of the sweeping immigration reforms of 1986.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did his fair share of complaining about skimpy SCAAP funding. In 2005, he and a bipartisan group of western U.S. governors demanded a boost in the program to a total of $850 million. That didn’t happen.

The past two presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, offered their own proposals to cancel the program. Trump’s budget scores the possible savings at $210 million. His budget blueprint lampoons SCAAP as “poorly targeted,” and describes it as a program “in which two-thirds of the funding primarily reimburses four states” for housing felons who lack legal immigration status.

Want to take a guess which state gets the most? OK, that’s an easy one.

California’s state government received $44.1 million in the 2015 federal budget year, according to Justice Department data. Add to that another $12.8 million that was paid directly to California counties, with the largest local subsidy being the $3 million paid to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

More than one-third of the entire program went to California. No other state’s share was even close. A win on this issue for the president would be particularly bitter for the state, where political animosity toward Trump is widespread.

Political Road Map: There’s a $368 billion reason that California depends on Washington »

In Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget unveiled last month, he assumed $50.6 million in federal help for prison costs related to felons in the U.S. illegally. A budget spokesman for Brown said the governor will ask for help from the state’s congressional delegation in saving the program. Still, it’s safe to say the estimate is now in doubt.

Roll back the clock, though, and take a look at how this political debate has changed. Wilson’s legacy on illegal immigration cast a long shadow as candidate Trump promised to go after “bad hombres” who are illegally in the country. The president’s official plan, by most estimates, would go even further.

When President Obama tried to nix the subsidy, conservatives warned it would endanger public safety. So far, few are making the same case now that it’s coming from Trump — a curious development, given California’s most famous illegal immigration critic once insisted the program was essential.

john.myers@latimes.com

Follow @johnmyers on Twitter, sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter and listen to the weekly California Politics Podcast

ALSO:

Los Angeles County sheriff opposes legislation to create a ‘sanctuary state’ in California

Gov. Jerry Brown projects a $1.6 billion deficit by the summer of 2018

Updates on California politics and state government

In the last several months, Tim Russert of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” one of TV’s toughest interviewers, struck out with two of his biggest “gets”:

In August, he quizzed Sen. John F. Kerry, “You both were members of Skull and Bones, a secret society at Yale. What does that tell us?”

Kerry: “Not much, because it’s a secret.”

In February, he asked President Bush, “You were both in Skull and Bones, the secret society?”

Bush: “It’s so secret we can’t talk about it.”

Such coyness on the part of grown men! And yet, their recalcitrance does prove one thing: The guys can keep a secret.

But is that good? Secrecy, after all, leads to rumors. And the rumors about Skull and Bones — naked confessions of sexual conquests, grave robbing, free money and, of course, plans for world domination — don’t look good on the presidential resume. Those rumors received a boost when it became apparent that, for the first time in history, two Bonesmen will face off for the presidency in November.

“It’s certainly a coincidence that lends itself to attention,” said the historian Kevin Phillips, whose recent work, “American Dynasty,” explores how the Bushes have benefited from what he calls “crony capitalism.” “Is it nefarious? I guess it’s a little insidious.”

Journalist and author Ron Rosenbaum (Yale ‘68), who wrote the seminal article on Skull and Bones for Esquire in 1977, thinks the Bush-Kerry coincidence should be treated thoughtfully. “Obviously, it’s part of what shaped the character of the two presidential candidates, and yet there’s a lot of overblown conspiracy theory that has outweighed the seriousness.”

Indeed, a serious political discussion might examine the meaning of both presidential candidates maintaining an inherently undemocratic affiliation and refusing to address an important aspect of their university lives. Instead, discussions on the Internet, talk radio and cable TV, generally turn on suspicions that Skull and Bones has attempted to mastermind a “new world order” in which only a handful of wealthy, old-line families control the planet.

“Is this a satanic cult? No. Is this a group that operates as a shadow government? No. Is this a group that has an institutionalized superiority complex? Yes,” said Alexandra Robbins, a 27-year-old journalist and Yale alumna whose book “Secrets of the Tomb” explores the 172-year-old club based on interviews with 100 anonymous Bonesmen. Bones, she said, has “a power agenda” that “prioritizes its own elitism and its own members above other concerns.”

Rosenbaum disputes that there is a specific “power agenda” at work. “I would say the best way of describing it is by analogy to the old boys’ network in England, where graduates of Eton and Oxford and Cambridge form a network of influence and power and share a mind-set. They know each other, they trust each other and they bonded at an early age.”

If nothing else, Skull and Bones has produced some odd bedfellows. “I am a liberal Democratic criminal defense attorney who voted for George Bush, and I will vote for him again,” said Bush’s fellow Bonesman Donald Etra, an Orthodox Jew who lives in L.A. and was appointed by Bush to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. Etra, who called himself “a strong Zionist,” said one of his closest Bones friends is a Jordanian-born Muslim. “Most of us,” he said, “put friendship first and politics a far, far second.”

Next month, an eclectic group of 15 juniors will be tapped for Skull and Bones by this year’s seniors. There have never been specific criteria for membership, which in generations past might have included some standard campus types: the editor of the Yale Daily, an outstanding athlete, a son of a Bonesman etc. Women were admitted in 1991, after a rancorous 20-year battle.

Bones members spend each Thursday and Sunday of their senior year in the Tomb, the group’s clubhouse on High Street in the middle of the Yale campus. It is windowless, ersatz Greco-Egyptian temple, readily identified on Yale maps.

“It’s kind of foreboding looking,” said a 48-year-old Toronto writer who sneaked into the Tomb with her boyfriend during spring break 1975. “They made it into this big mystery thing. But it wasn’t. It’s just like a big clubhouse, but it’s not in a tree.” There was a large dining room with a long table, and she recalled a room full of license plates. “They were always ripping things off with ‘322’ on them.”

The number 322 is a variation on the year (1832) that the club was founded by William H. Russell, a Yale student who modeled it after one he’d encountered in Germany. At its inception, said Dr. Alan Cross, one of Kerry’s classmates and a third-generation Bonesman, the club was “basically a debating society, where members of the senior class would get together and discuss important topics of the day.” (Bonesmen have a special regard for Demosthenes, the famed Greek orator who died in 322 BC.)

In later generations, the conversations became not just confessional but confrontational in the manner of group therapy, according to some reports. There was always security, said Cross, a professor of social medicine and pediatrics at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in the knowledge that “what goes on inside, what people reveal about themselves … would stay inside the building.”

Not surprisingly, given Yale’s lofty status in the firmament of American universities, Bonesmen often have occupied positions of power and prestige as adults. Three have become president (both Bushes and William Howard Taft). A partial roster of the famous includes diplomat Averill Harriman, poet Archibald MacLeish, financier Dean Witter Jr., Time magazine founder Henry Luce, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, national security advisor McGeorge Bundy, writers William F. Buckley and Christopher Buckley, former Sen. David Boren and FedEx founder Frederick Smith.

Not every Bonesman has loved the club unconditionally. As an adult, William Sloane Coffin, the Yale chaplain known for his opposition to the Vietnam War, developed a distaste for it. “He thought it was inappropriate,” said Cross. “A snobby thing. We were discouraged from gathering in groups around campus because it would perpetuate the notion that this was an elitist group.”

But of course, it is an elite group. Members can’t apply for membership — they are secretly elected. They have lifelong access to Deer Island, a private 40-acre sanctuary in the St. Lawrence River, which is owned by Skull and Bones’ corporate parent, the Russell Trust Assn. And they are accorded other, less tangible benefits for life, not the least of which are their connections to the well-connected.

The Bush family has a long history with Skull and Bones. George W. Bush’s father tapped him in 1967, as a favor to the seniors who nominated him. The president’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, who was a U.S. senator, supposedly boasted in a journal that he stole the skull of Geronimo in 1918 for display among the many osseous relics in the Tomb, according to Robbins.

The current college generation of Bushes may represent a break in family tradition: Barbara Bush, a Yale senior, reportedly rejected an invitation to join the club.

Kerry, tapped in 1965, has no family history with Bones, although David Thorne, the twin of his first wife, Julia, is a member, as was his current wife’s first father-in-law, John Heinz.

Whether the president and his challenger are influenced by their Skull and Bones associations is, in a general sense, a matter of record. Both men have close friends and political contributors who are Bonesmen. Bush’s early forays into business were helped along by older Bonesmen. Bush has appointed several of his clubmates to government positions, including William H. Donaldson, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Tales from a ‘savage’

The general goings on in the Tomb — particularly of eras past — are not truly secret anymore. This is due, mostly, to the investigative efforts of the two Yalie journalists, Rosenbaum and Robbins.

Robbins was an editorial assistant in the Washington bureau of the New Yorker when she first wrote a story about Skull and Bones for the Atlantic in 2000, which she expanded into a book two years later. Her own membership in a Yale secret society, Scroll and Key, helped open doors. “I got a lot of hang-ups and a lot of gruff voices saying, ‘I’m not talking to you about that!’ ” But when she identified herself as a “savage” — Bones-speak for a member of another secret society — it worked as an entree. (Regular folks are “barbarians.”)

Robbins has revealed that all Bonesmen receive lifelong nicknames, some handed down. (The president’s father, she writes, was “Magog,” a name given to the most sexually experienced Bonesman. George W. never got around to choosing a nickname and was dubbed “Temporary.”)

Like Rosenbaum (who has participated in covert taping operations of Bones rituals with infrared equipment), Robbins has written about the Tomb’s initiation rites. Bonesmen dress up as a variety of characters — “right out of Harry Potter meets Dracula” — and conduct what she has described as “a cross between haunted-house antics and a human pinball game.”

“World domination aside,” she writes in “Secrets of the Tomb,” the most pervasive rumors about Bones are that initiates must masturbate in a coffin while recounting their sexual exploits and that their candor is ultimately rewarded with a no-strings gift of $15,000.”

No Bonesmen interviewed for this article would comment on the nature of the confessional conversations. But Cross and Etra laughed at the idea that there was a monetary gift. “There was no check,” said Cross. Another Bonesman who graduated from Yale in 1975 and lives in Los Angeles, agreed: “That’s ridiculous! I never got any money.”

‘Somewhat laughable’

Despite the fact that the presidential race has kindled interest in Skull and Bones, many believe the club has been in a long decline. Admitting women may have struck a blow for equality, but the Tomb just hasn’t generated much juicy buzz since then.

These days, wrote Franklin Foer in an April 2000 issue of the New Republic, Yale’s secret societies are “high temples of political correctness” where women outnumber men and “conservatives are scarce.”

While Kerry has said that he favored admitting women, the Bush position is not known. However, rumors have it that some older Bonesmen have forsaken the club now that it is coed.

“Once upon a time there was something called the Eastern Establishment, and Skull and Bones was a significant institution feeding into it,” said Jacob Weisberg, 39, editor of the online magazine Slate. “There is the residue of it, but it is not the same kind of network, not the same kind of career path.”

Weisberg should know.

In spring 1986, Weisberg, a Yale student interning at the New Republic, was invited to Kerry’s office. “I was writing about politics, so I thought maybe he was going to give me a scoop or something,” Weisberg said. But when Weisberg showed up, Kerry tapped him for Skull and Bones.

“I said, ‘Sen. Kerry, as a liberal, how do you justify supporting this club that doesn’t admit women?’ ”

Kerry was taken aback. According to Weisberg, Kerry said: “I’ve marched with battered women.”

Weisberg declined the tap and has no regrets.

“The institution is somewhat laughable at this point,” he said. “That we’re having a presidential race with two alumni of this club tells you something, but it tells you more about what’s changed, because it’s inconceivable that in 20 years we’ll have an election where two candidates are from Skull and Bones. This is the last time this could plausibly happen. I think it’s sort of the last gasp.”

SACRAMENTO — Tom Steyer must solve this dilemma: How does he convince financially struggling Californians they can trust a billionaire to be their governor?

Because, after all, the former hedge fund titan doesn’t exactly share their daily ordeal of scraping up enough money to pay for rent, groceries and gas in the run-down car.

And he doesn’t have any record in public office to point to. He’s trying to start his elective career at the top.

So, what’s the solution? Well, you can be a global celebrity like super-rich actor Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was elected in 2003. Or a Gold Rush tycoon like Leland Stanford back in 1861. Other than those two, there’s a long list of well-heeled rookie failures.

They include Republican Meg Whitman, who blew $144 million of her fortune losing in 2010. And Al Checchi, who spent $40 million of his own money getting beaten in the 1994 Democratic primary.

“Look, they didn’t have anything to say,” Steyer told me while sipping tea at a popular hangout near the state Capitol, specifically mentioning Whitman and Checchi. “They’d never done anything. Not like I’ve done for 14 years.”

Steyer, 68, who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, touts his record of funding and promoting progressive causes, including successful ballot campaigns that raised tobacco taxes, closed a major corporate tax loophole and beat back oil industry efforts to kill climate fighting laws.

“I could give you 10 things I’ve done about environmental sustainability and economic justice,” he said.

“Why trust me? Because I’ve gotten results. And I don’t owe anybody anything.”

The Democrat spent $12 million on TV ads last year pushing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 50 that allowed the Legislature to gerrymander congressional districts aimed at gaining five more Democratic seats in California.

Being a billionaire allows Steyer to buy all the TV spots he wants. He already has popped for $27 million worth running for governor.

But astronomical wealth comes with a political price.

“California voters do not cotton to some rich guy who has never spent a day in office but looks in the mirror one morning and suddenly sees a governor of California,” says veteran Democratic strategist Garry South.

So, in his campaign TV commercials, Steyer wears casual backyard barbecue garb trying to look like Mr. Average, but with a populist agenda.

“I’m the billionaire who’s going to take on the billionaires,” he says.

That sounds counterintuitive, and I’m skeptical about how well it sells.

Steyer knows he sorely needs labor support to seem credible among the working class. That’s why he recently joined rallies for striking teachers in San Francisco and healthcare workers in San Diego.

He has scored endorsements from the California School Employees Assn. — a union representing school staff — and the California Nurses Assn.

Nurses are backing Steyer largely because he has embraced their No. 1 goal: a single-payer, state-run health insurance system.

They’ve attempted to push that in Sacramento for years and failed. And for good reason.

Single-payer would cost the state barrels of money it doesn’t have. Moreover, it would replace not only private insurance, but popular federal Medicare and the state’s Medi-Cal program for the poor. The federal government would need to agree. Fat chance.

I asked Steyer whether he really believes the state bureaucracy is capable of handling such an ambitious undertaking.

“We’re going to have to get back to having a government that works,” he replied, in what sounded like a knock on Newsom and his predecessors.

How could he make a single-payer system work? “God is in the details,” he answered, a phrase he frequently uses. Translation: “I don’t know.”

“We’re going to work through it. That’ll take at least three years… But we’re going to have to do it…. Healthcare costs have been escalating for a very long time. And they’re eating up the [state] budget.”

After Steyer left hedge fund investing, he became an ardent crusader for clean energy and fighting climate change. It was his core issue running for president in 2020, when he spent $340 million before giving up.

But these days, he barely mentions climate. The better politics du jour is advocating for “affordability” — especially affordable housing.

Steyer said he doesn’t have a “silver bullet” for lowering housing costs. He has “silver buckshot” — a scattergun of solutions for boosting housing supply, plus rent control.

He’d shorten the time for issuing construction permits, require rezoning to develop vacant land, tax unoccupied housing left off the market and build higher — more like in New York’s Manhattan, where he was raised.

“What we’re doing is sprawl,” he said. “And what sprawl leads to is an awful lot of commuting, a lot of driving.”

That’s been a problem for generations, I noted. Suburban ranch-style housing is the California way. “People can change,” he said. “I think people want to.”

I asked him about the slow-poke bullet train project that’s costing four times original estimates.

“Of course, I’m in favor of high speed rail,” he said. “But good grief. We’ve been working on this for an incredibly long time and spent an incredible amount of money. As far as I can tell, we haven’t built anything. If we’re going to do high-speed rail, we have to build it at a reasonable price. And we haven’t been able to do that.”

Might he abandon the project? “I want to look at it,” he said.

The odds are against him ever getting the opportunity.

But the odds aren’t exciting for any candidate in this ho-hum contest.

Steyer is running in the middle of the pack, based on polls. He has hired the strategists who managed Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s victorious campaign for New York mayor.

There’s no front-runner for governor. But Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) has some momentum. He recently was endorsed by Sen. Adam Schiff. And he’ll also soon be endorsed by influential former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, I’m told.

Voters will do their all-important endorsing in the June 2 primary.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: In 50-year fight to protect California’s coast, they’re the real McCoys, still at it in their 80s
CA vs. Trump: Trump, California and the multi-front war over the next election
The L.A. Times Special: Who pays for Newsom’s travel? Hint: It’s not always taxpayers

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Meg Whitman strode to the podium, cloaked in righteous indignation. Her husband stood silently by her side.

Just one day earlier, her former housekeeper had revealed that Whitman — the Republican candidate for governor with the tough talk on immigration — had employed an illegal worker for nine years.

Although she said she fired Nicandra Diaz Santillan after she heard about her housekeeper’s status, Whitman was in a no-win situation. Conservatives wondered why Whitman hadn’t turned “Nicky” over to authorities. Liberals bristled that the candidate hadn’t helped this “member of our extended family” find an attorney.

After a 45-minute barrage of questions, the always-on-message candidate finally delivered her main talking points: “We have to secure the borders. We have to hold employers accountable. We’ve got to eliminate sanctuary cities. And we’ve got to get a temporary guestworker program so people like Nicky can work here legally.”

The dueling news conferences that week — Whitman vs. Diaz Santillan and her attorney, Gloria Allred —were remarkable for more than their political repercussions. Salted between housekeeper tears and candidate bluster were as many details as had ever been known about the closely guarded private life of the billionaire who aspires to be governor.

Whitman has spent a lifetime in business, shepherding, protecting and selling some of America’s most valuable brands: Ivory soap, Keds, Mr. Potato Head, EBay. For the last 19 months, she has burnished her own brand — using more than $141 million of her personal fortune in the process.

Her money has made Whitman a ubiquitous presence in California living rooms, her aristocratic tones wafting out of television sets in an unprecedented barrage of ads. It has allowed her to largely avoid the spontaneity that gets novice politicians into trouble. Campaign stops tend to be by invitation only, or photo ops, like her recent stint as NASCAR grand marshal: “Gentlemen, start your engines!”

The former EBay chief is running on resume, not biography, to an extent rarely seen in modern politics. At a time when candidates’ extended families gambol on stage, and cameras are invited to watch them ski, fish and barbecue, Whitman’s is still largely unknown.

The candidate is married to Dr. Griffith Rutherford Harsh IV; his silent cameo in Santa Monica was a rare appearance on his wife’s behalf. The Stanford University neurosurgeon has given just one interview in their 30-year marriage. Whitman’s sister and brother have neither spoken nor appeared for her. Ditto, her two grown sons. Despite repeated requests, the campaign did not make Whitman available for an interview.

As a result Californians have learned more about Whitman from campaign crises and court cases than they have from the candidate’s own telling: For most of her adult life, she did not vote. She has a temper that can flare under pressure. Her primary residence and household staff are modest by billionaires’ standards: 3,700 square feet in tony Atherton for the first, a part-time housekeeper, landscape and pool service for the second.

Whitman and her campaign staff “refuse to relinquish any kind of control over the candidate, her image and her message,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a USC political analyst. “They can afford to; they have all the money in the Western world.… When her people don’t have control, there is danger there.”

It’s not as if Margaret Cushing Whitman’s 54 years haven’t had their share of personal drama. But there are stories she tells on the campaign trail — and ones she doesn’t.

Whitman was raised in wealthy Lloyd Harbor, N.Y., the youngest of three children. Her 6-foot 8-inch father, Hendricks Hallett Whitman, was a World War II veteran who worked in the financial industry. But it was her stay-at-home mother, Margaret C. Whitman, whom the candidate describes as her inspiration, a woman blessed with a “bias for action.”

Whitman actually talks as much about her mother’s personal life as her own.

In the depths of World War II, Whitman’s Boston-born mother wanted to do her share. She ended up in New Guinea with the Red Cross fixing airplane and jeep engines — though she had never popped a hood in her life.

“What that story really told me as a little girl was the price of inaction is far greater than the cost of making a mistake,” Whitman said at a recent campaign event. “That you have to try things that you’re not sure you can do.”

Buried deep in Whitman’s recent book, past 200 pages of corporate bromides (Be frugal. Be authentic. Results matter.) are two tales that do not make the campaign-trail cut: the story of her own birth defect and of her sister Anne’s struggle with mental illness.

Tall, patrician and athletic today, Whitman was born with dysplasia; her left hip lacked a socket. Doctors discovered the condition shortly after she was born, and she spent her toddler years strapped in a metal brace that helped mold a socket.

The treatment worked, and Whitman gravitated toward sports. She was captain of the swim team at Cold Harbor High School, where she graduated a year early. At Princeton University, where she was in only the fourth class to admit women, she played lacrosse and squash.

Stories of overcoming hardship are staples for most candidates, but Whitman eschews the emotional in favor of pragmatic connections to her audiences. Her campaign pays particular attention to women voters, and the candidate regularly reminds audiences that she would be the first woman governor. But she spends little time talking about the difficulties of balancing home and family and whether she shared those problems.

At a campaign event last month, a member of the audience asked Whitman: “Does being a woman and a mother give you a different perspective on running this state, and if so, how?” Her answer? Maybe, but it doesn’t really matter.

“In the end, as all the women in this audience know and all the men, you have to deliver the results, don’t you?” she responded. “And that’s what I did in my business career, and that is what I will do as governor.”

Whitman argues that her corporate experience makes her uniquely qualified to run a place as complex as California. And she offers up her decade at online auction giant EBay as exhibit A for why voters should choose her over Brown.

But between consulting firm Bain & Co, one of her first jobs out of business school, where she said she learned to be a corporate “all-around athlete,” and EBay, which she boasts grew from 30 to 15,000 employees during her tenure, there was FTD. In her book she describes her two years there in the mid-1990s as “probably the most frustrating and, ultimately, least satisfying executive experience in my career.”

When Whitman arrived, the member-owned association of florists had just been bought by an investor group and turned into a for-profit company. To service the debt, the company had to be immediately profitable, but many of the association’s florists had decamped to the competition.

“I finally quit that job,” she wrote, telling the arbitrageur who bought FTD: “ ‘This company is not fixable, at least by me.’ ”

Whitman wasn’t the only one who rued her time at the Southfield, Mich., headquarters.

Peggy Thompson, her assistant, recalled that FTD administration had been segregated in an isolated executive wing. Whitman shut that down and “moved us in with everyone else. We thought, ‘That’s really awesome. She wants us to be one team.’ But she didn’t have anything to do with us. She didn’t like us…. She was the worst boss I’ve ever had, and I’ve had some winners.”

Nearly a year into her stint at FTD, Whitman was sued for age discrimination by a 55-year-old technology executive named David M. Carlson, whom she fired and replaced with a 39-year-old, a man her age.

At a strategy session shortly before Carlson was let go, Whitman said the company needed “about fifteen killer young executives,” according to court documents. When FTD’s head of government affairs suggested that she not use the word “young” and probably didn’t mean it, she replied: “Actually, I do.”

The suit ended in a confidential settlement. Carlson could not be reached for comment.

It was EBay, of course, that Whitman helped make a household name, and the quirky online auction company returned the favor with wealth and opportunity. In the course of a decade, two brands were born.

No campaign appearance or debate is complete without at least a taste of her EBay experience. As she noted during the final debate: “I ended up running one of the great Internet success stories…. I was a job creator.”

Her tenure earned her accolades. Harvard Business Review named her one of the top performing CEOs of the past decade; Fortune magazine put her on its list of the Top Five most powerful women.

Maynard Webb, whom she wooed to the company to rebuild its faulty computer system after a 22-hour outage, calls her “the best boss and leader that I ever had.”

He saw her push the company to expand outside of North America, and “today international is over 50% of EBay’s revenues.” And he remembers the day in 2001 when the system again broke down. First the primary system failed, then the backups.

The site was down for hours, leaving buyers and sellers paralyzed. Even after the outage ended, time-consuming technical cleanup followed.

“Meg stayed with the team, made sure it was all OK,” Webb recounted. “She left at 2 a.m. This was the kind of leader she was.”

But her tenure was not without controversy. She pushed the company into a string of acquisitions. Some, like PayPal, were successes. Others, like Skype and Butterfield & Butterfield, were widely panned. Her last three years at the company coincided with slowing growth and a faltering stock price.

In 2007, while being prepped for an interview with Reuters, Whitman became angry with a communications aide, uttered an expletive and shoved the young woman.

The incident led to a confidential settlement in which Young Mi Kim reportedly received $200,000. At first the campaign sought to portray the matter as a “verbal dispute,” but Whitman later acknowledged that she had laid hands on Kim.

“Sometimes,” she said, “these things happen.”

Whitman never planned to go into business or politics. Her ambition to become a medical doctor was derailed by a collision with organic chemistry; she opted for business after selling ads for a student magazine called Business Today.

Her shift to politics came at the request of Mitt Romney, who had been her mentor at Bain. Romney asked her to help him run for president; she raised millions for him. When he dropped out of the 2008 race, she shifted her support to John McCain. Forever the marketer, she also came up with his slogan: “Country first.”

Her own venture into politics left many to wonder why the deeply private Whitman would open herself up to the scrutiny of campaigning. Introducing her to his employees at Cisco Systems recently, Chief Executive John Chambers asked her if a particular event pushed her to run because, “as a friend, I worry.”

An hour or so later, Whitman would make her first remarks about her housekeeper. But she made no mention of that in responding to Chambers. Characteristically impersonal, Whitman recalled a meeting at EBay, where the company’s executive team rued how hard it was for businesses to function here. Today, she told Chambers, she wants to change that.

“I remember my executive team sitting in a conference room,” she recounted. “And I said, ‘If we were going to start EBay again, would we start it in California?’ And you know, I’m not sure the answer to that is ‘Yes.’ ”

maria.laganga@latimes.com

After some 150 students walked out of Redlands schools early this month in support of immigrants they were dealt an unexpected consequence: a temporary suspension of school privileges as administrators enforced rules that forbid them from leaving a classroom without permission.

The punishment — the loss of access to sports, dances, performances and other school events — in a school system with a conservative-majority governing board stands in sharp contrast to the positive reception that student activism has received in some other California school systems, including Los Angeles Unified School District.

The disparate actions show how school officials throughout various states and school systems — in blue and red regions — have been dealing with a wave of student walkouts that began in late January as part of national protests over the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown.

Redlands school officials said the suspension of privileges will remain in place until a student satisfies certain conditions, such as attending a session of Saturday school or performing four hours of community service.

“The superintendent’s message is consistent: We care deeply about our students, and we recognize that many young people are dealing and engaging with issues they see in the news and in their community,” said district Public Information Officer Christine Stephens. “Students have the right to express themselves peacefully. At the same time, the district must uphold its responsibility to maintain a safe, supervised learning environment during the school day.”

Districts that expressed support for students’ free-speech rights included those in San Francisco and Sacramento. In Palo Alto, district officials worked with schools to make sure students could carry out their announced walkout safely.

L.A. Unified officials have not set districtwide penalties for walkouts — and its leaders align with the students’ anti-ICE critique. Supt. Alberto Carvalho, an immigrant himself, has pledged to do all in the district’s power to maintain schools as sanctuaries for children of immigrant families — and activists patrol outside schools to help ensure safe passage to campus for parents and students.

At the same time, LAUSD educators have encouraged students to stay on campus for safety reasons. In L.A. there were reports of physical confrontations between officers and protesters after students walked out on Feb. 5 and on Feb. 13, when three federal agents were injured after some in the crowd threw objects at them.

State and education leaders in Texas and Florida outlined significant consequences for students and educators related to student walkouts. In Texas, state leaders have talked about possible suspension and expulsion for students, dismissal for educators and state takeovers for school districts.

The ACLU of Georgia sent a letter Jan. 29 expressing concerns to the Cobb County School District after it threatened out-of-school suspension, loss of parking and extracurricular privileges and warned of college admissions consequences for participation in walkouts.

The ACLU warned that the school system would be acting illegally if walkout participants were singled out for especially harsh treatment based on their viewpoints.

The young activists

Student high school activists — in Redlands and elsewhere — said they are willing to face consequences, if necessary, to stand up for what they believe by protesting the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“As organizers, it’s expected for us to take the first wave of retaliation,” said Redlands High School senior Jax Hardy. “So while we would be very disappointed in the district for doing such a thing, for us, it’s important to exercise our free speech rights to oppose a government that is encroaching on our human rights.”

Student leaders see their protests as a civics lesson in action.

“It’s necessary to act, because, if we don’t, who knows how things will escalate further,” said Redlands High junior Aya F, who goes by her last initial rather than her full legal name. “So that’s why we feel it’s important for us to stage this walkout.”

Redlands is about 60 miles east of downtown L.A. and enrolls about 20,000 students. In November 2024 a conservative majority was elected to the five-person Redlands Board of Education, aligning the board with key policies of the Trump administration. Redlands joined a handful of ideologically similar California boards in approving policies that would allow parents to challenge library books with sexual content and prohibit display of the rainbow pride flag, which is associated with the LGBTQ+ community.

But the district stated that its actions on the walkouts have no ideology attached.

“The district’s response is not based on the viewpoint, theme or content of a student’s expression,” Stephens said.

Students walk out despite punishment

Some Redlands students organized another walkout Friday and organizers said they expected representation from students at seven middle and high schools. Many showed up from Redlands High School. They carried “Stop ICE” signs and Mexican flags and blew whistles as they made a 15-minute trek to a downtown intersection that some refer to as “Peace Corner.”

“I haven’t seen this many people in Redlands do anything ever,” said sophomore James Bojado, who also said that, for days, administrators had attempted to dissuade students with threats of discipline.

Several Redlands police vehicles patrolled the rally area, slowly rolling by.

A man in a sun hat shouted: “Why don’t you fly the American flag? Are you ashamed of America?”

“Leave us alone!” a chorus responded.

“My mom and my dad are immigrants,” said sophomore Carmen Robles. “Why deport families that care about America back to where they came from?”

At the rally, student demands included an ironclad district commitment that ICE will never be allowed on campus. Students also called for the abolition of ICE and spoke of wanting the school board to rescind what they regard as anti-LGBTQ+ policies. These include the flag ban and the book restriction policy.

During the Friday Redlands rally, there were a few tense minutes when a student in a MAGA hat was pelted by water bottles. The student spoke to police but also said he wasn’t hurt.

A person wearing a MAGA hat gets water and pizza thrown at him during a student walkout and protest in Redlands.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Adult volunteers were on hand with the goal of keeping things safe and positive. Parent Toni Belcher said that students have a right to be heard.

“I’m happy to see all these kids trying to get their voice to matter,” Belcher said. “If it doesn’t now, it will. … They’re starting early.”

What the law says

The right of students to express themselves begins with the U.S. Constitution.

“You do not lose your right to free speech just by walking into school,” according to guidance from the American Civil Liberties Union. “You have the right to speak out, hand out flyers and petitions and wear expressive clothing in school — as long as you don’t disrupt the functioning of the school or violate the school’s content-neutral policies.”

A walkout, however, could be treated as a disruption. But greater punishment cannot be applied based on the nature of the views expressed.

Redlands Unified believes it is complying with that legal standard.

California law offers some additional protection for student protests, but it’s not unlimited.

A California law, which took effect in 2023, allows a middle or high school student to miss one day of school per year as an excused absence for a “civic or political event.” This includes, but is not limited to, “voting, poll-working, strikes, public-commenting, candidate speeches, political or civic forums and town halls.”

The bill’s author, then-state Sen. Connie Leyva, said at the time that the law “emphasizes the importance of getting students more involved in government and their community by prioritizing student opportunities for civic learning and engagement both within and outside their education.”

One caveat is that the law requires that “the pupil notifies the school ahead of the absence.”

Students exercising this right must be allowed to make up missed schoolwork without penalty. There are potential gray areas — such as whether a large-scale school walkout — which organizers intend to be dramatic — would fall outside this protection because students don’t formally check out, for example.

One Redlands parent said he notified the school that his son had permission to take part in an earlier walkout after the walkout. But his son was still penalized because, the parent said, he was not allowed to grant permission for his son retroactively.

State law does require advance notice, but it does not say parental permission is required for that one protected civic activity day per year. The law also stipulates that schools, at their discretion, can allow additional excused absences for civic participation.

The parent, who did not want to be named out of concern for retaliation, said his son was placed on a “No-Go List” for extracurricular activities and events.

President Trump and his allies are questioning ballot security. Democrats are warning of unconstitutional federal intervention. Experts and others are raising concerns about partisan redistricting and federal immigration agents intimidating people at the polls.

Voter trust in the upcoming midterm elections, meanwhile, has dropped off sharply, and across party lines, according to new research by the UC San Diego Center for Transparent and Trusted Elections.

Out of 11,406 eligible voters surveyed between mid-December and mid-January, just 60% said they were confident that midterm votes will be counted fairly — down from 77% who held such confidence in vote counting shortly after the 2024 presidential election.

Shifts in voter confidence are common after elections, with voters in winning parties generally expressing more confidence and voters in losing parties expressing less, said Thad Kousser, one of the center’s co-directors. However, the new survey found double-digit, across-the-board declines in confidence in the last year, he said.

According to voting experts, such drops in confidence and fears about voter intimidation are alarming — and raise serious questions about voter turnout in a pivotal midterm election that could radically reshape American politics.

While 82% of Republicans expressed at least some confidence in vote counting after Trump’s 2024 win, just 65% said they felt that way in the latest survey. Among Democrats, confidence dropped from 77% to 64%, and among independents from 73% to 57%, the survey found.

“Everyone — Democrats, Republicans, independents alike — have become less trusting of elections over the last year,” Kousser said, calling it a “parallel movement in this polarized era.”

Of course, what is causing those declines differs greatly by party, said Kousser’s co-director Lauren Prather, with distrust of mail ballots and noncitizens voting cited by half of Republicans, and concerns about eligible voters being unable to cast ballots because of fear or intimidation cited by nearly a quarter of Democrats.

Trump and other Republicans have repeatedly alleged that mail ballots contribute to widespread fraud and that noncitizen voting is a major problem in U.S. elections, despite neither claim being supported by evidence.

Dean C. Logan, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, oversees the registering of voters, maintaining voter files, administering federal, state, local and special elections and verifying initiatives, referenda and recall petitions.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

Many Democratic leaders and voting experts have raised concerns about disenfranchisement and intimidation of eligible voters, in part based on Republican efforts to enforce stricter voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements, and Trump suggesting his party should “take over” elections nationwide.

Others in Trump’s orbit have suggested Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will be deployed to polling stations, and the FBI recently raided and seized ballots from Fulton County, Ga., long a target of Trump’s baseless claims of 2020 election fraud.

Prather said that research has long showed that “elite cues” — or messaging from political leaders — matter in shaping public perception of election security and integrity, so it is no surprise that the concerns being raised by Trump and other party elites are being echoed by voters.

But the survey also identified more bipartisan concerns, she said.

Voters of all backgrounds — including 51% of Democrats, 48% of independents and 34% of Republicans — said they do not trust that congressional districts are drawn to fairly reflect what voters want. They primarily blamed the opposing party for the problem, but nearly a quarter of both Democrats and Republicans also expressed dissatisfaction with their own party leaders, the survey found.

Various states have engaged in unprecedented mid-decade redistricting to win more congressional seats for their party, with Republicans seizing advantage in states such as Texas and Democrats seizing it in states such as California.

Voters of all backgrounds — including 44% of Democrats, 34% of independents and 30% of Republicans — also said they believe it is likely that ICE agents will be present at voting locations in their area, though they did not all agree on the implications.

Half of Democrats said such a presence would make them feel less confident that votes in their area would be counted accurately, compared with fewer than 14% who said it would make them more confident. Among Republicans, 48% said it would make them more confident, and about 8% less confident. Among independents, 19% said more confident, 32% less confident.

Perceptions of ICE at polling locations also varied by race, with 42% of Asian American voters, 38% of Hispanic voters, 29% of white voters and 28% of Black voters saying it would make them feel less confident, while 18% of Asian American voters, 24% of Hispanic voters, 27% of white voters and 21% of Black voters said it would make them feel more confident.

Among both Black and Hispanic voters, 46% said they expect to face intimidation while voting, compared with 35% of Asian American voters and just 10% of white voters. Meanwhile, 31% of Hispanic and Asian American voters, 21% of Black voters and 8% of white voters said they are specifically worried about being questioned by ICE agents at the polls.

A man waits in line to vote at Compton College in November.

(Michael Blackshire / Los Angeles Times)

Kousser said voters’ lack of confidence this cycle reflects a remarkable moment in American politics, when political rhetoric has caused widespread distrust not just in the outcome of elections, but in the basic structure and fairness of how votes are collected and counted — despite those structures being tested and proven.

“We’re at this moment now where there are people on both sides who are questioning what the objective conditions will be of the election — whether people will be able to freely make it to the polls, what the vote counting mechanisms will be — and that’s true sort of left, right, and center in American politics today,” he said.

Prather said research in other countries has shown that distrust in elections over time can cause voters to stop voting, particularly if they think their vote won’t be fairly counted. She does not think the U.S. has reached that point, as high turnout in recent elections has shown, but it is a longer-term risk.

What could have a more immediate effect are ICE deployments, “especially among groups that have worries about what turning out could mean for them if they expect ICE or federal agents to be there,” Prather said.

Election experts said voters with concerns should take steps to ensure their vote counts, including by double-checking they are registered and making a plan to vote early, by mail or with family and friends if they are worried about intimidation.

What voters should not do if they are worried about election integrity is decide to not vote, they said.

“The No. 1 thing on my list is and always will be: Vote,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law. “That sounds maybe trite or simple, but the only way we hold on to our democracy is if people continue to participate and continue to trust it and put their faith in it.”

Registrar voter staff members process ballots at the Orange County Registrar of Voters in Santa Ana in November.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

“Now is the time to buckle down and figure out how to fortify our protections for fair elections, and not to give into the chaos and believe it’s somehow overwhelming,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law.

“I don’t want people to feel like nothing is working, it’s all overwhelming and they are just being paralyzed by all the news of these attacks, these threats,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the Voting Rights Project at the ACLU. “There are a huge range of folks who are working to ensure that these elections go as smoothly as possible, and that if anything comes up, we are ready to respond.”

Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant in California, said the erosion of confidence in U.S. elections was “a deliberate strategy” pushed by Trump for years to explain away legitimate election losses that embarrassed him, and facilitated by Republicans in Congress unwilling to check Trump’s lies to defend U.S. election integrity.

However, Democrats have added to the problem and become “the monster they are fighting” by gerrymandering blue states through redistricting measures such as California’s Proposition 50, which have further eroded American trust in elections, Madrid said.

Madrid said that he nonetheless expects high turnout in the midterms, because many voters have “the sense that the crisis is existential for the future, that literally everything is on the line,” but that the loss of trust is a serious issue.

“Without that trust, a form of government like democracy — at least the American form of democracy — doesn’t work,” he said.

Trump — who in a post Friday called Democrats “horrible, disingenuous CHEATERS” for opposing voter ID laws that most Americans support — has long called on his supporters to turn out and vote in massive numbers to give him the largest possible margin of victory, as a buffer against any election cheating against him. One of his 2024 campaign slogans was “Too Big to Rig.”

In recent days, some of Trump’s fiercest critics — including Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) — have made a similar pitch to Democrats.

In an interview with The Times, Schiff said that he is “deeply concerned” about the midterms given all of Trump’s threats, but that voters should understand that “the remedy here is to become more involved, not less.”

“The very best protection we’ll have is the most massive voter turnout we’ve ever had,” he said. “It’s going to be those with the most important title in our system — the voters — who end up saving this country.”

Admittedly, I am a guy who generally dreads the thought of plodding through a shopping mall on any day of the year, but to me the encroachment of Black Friday into Thanksgiving evening seems not only insane but also disturbingly unpatriotic.

It was bad enough when it became the norm for people to show up in the middle of the night in order to be near the front of the line when store doors swung open early on the morn after Thanksgiving. Every time I heard about the herd of shoppers being culled as someone got trampled or sent to the hospital after a fight over a Tickle Me Elmo, I felt justified in my smugness and disdain of this retail frenzy. If that is how the rabble wanted to spend their time and money, so be it. The manic rush to save a hundred bucks on a 50-inch flat-screen TV or finish Christmas shopping by 9 a.m. on Black Friday could go on without me.

Over the years, though, retailers have pushed the starting time for this mad dash earlier and earlier until now it is bumping up against the slicing of the pumpkin pie at the Thanksgiving dinner table. This does not seem right.

PHOTOS: Top of the Ticket cartoons

I pity the poor retail workers who have to leave home and hearth and turkey dinner on the most venerable national holiday of the year. Instead of giving thanks for the opportunity to be confronted by a greedy horde of bargain hunters, I suspect most of those workers are cursing the store owners who decided to ruin the day with their own lust for a dollar. I think it is safe to assume the guys who own Target or Best Buy or the other big retailers will not be manning the cash registers. No, they will be sharing a leisurely Thanksgiving repast with their heirs in the peace and safety of their gated communities.

In 2013, it will be exactly 150 years since Abraham Lincoln set aside the fourth Thursday in November as a national day of “Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.” Obviously, traditions shift over time, but let us hope that by next year those who put making money and spending money above all other values will not have totally desecrated what was once an all-American day like no other.

For anyone who feels as disgusted as I am with the plundering of Thanksgiving, go to Change.org and sign the petition urging Target to stop being the Grinch who stole Thanksgiving from employees. Maybe if one retailer is shamed into doing business more thoughtfully, others can be, as well.

Reporting from Sacramento — Uber and Lyft continue to expand their dominance in California, and taxi companies are looking to the state Legislature for some relief.

“If communities value taxicabs, then we’re going to have to have a regulatory environment that allows cab companies to thrive,” said William Rouse, general manager of Yellow Cab of Los Angeles. “Right now, that’s just not the case.”

Rouse and others in the taxi industry have turned to Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) for help. Low has introduced AB 1069, which aims to ease taxi regulations to make the companies more competitive with their ride-hailing rivals.

Under Low’s legislation, which overwhelmingly passed the Assembly last month, taxi regulation would occur regionally rather than city by city. This means, for instance, cabs could pick up passengers in Los Angeles, drop them off in Santa Monica and vice versa without needing multiple permits.

Taxis also could lower or raise their prices — similar to Uber and Lyft’s surge-pricing models — in response to demand, with a maximum price set by each region.

“If we don’t do anything now, they will completely be annihilated,” Low said.

In California, numbers show the extent of the taxi industry’s decline and the ride-hailing boom. Taxi trips dropped nearly 30% in Los Angeles from 2012, right before Uber and Lyft began operating, to 2015. New research from the Brookings Institution shows that the number of ride-hailing drivers doubled in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Jose in 2015.

Uber and Lyft’s business models rely on using public pressure and lobbying to shape and change laws and regulations, said Elizabeth Pollman, a professor at Loyola Law School who has written about how Uber and Lyft have challenged existing state and local rules.

“Their business model wasn’t just to replicate the world we had, but rather to create a new model,” Pollman said.

Uber and Lyft have succeeded at the state Capitol in getting regulations and laws passed to benefit their industry and shooting down those that don’t. Even if Low’s bill passes, major regulatory disparities between ride-hailing companies and taxis will remain.

Taxi drivers still will have to pass fingerprint-based background checks, while Uber and Lyft drivers face less onerous rules. After years of delays, the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates ride-hailing statewide, is scheduled in the fall to decide whether ride-hailing drivers will need to pass fingerprint checks as well. Neither Uber nor Lyft has taken a position on Low’s bill, but each company has been generally supportive of loosening taxi regulations.

Still, cab companies and transportation experts said the legislation could have clear benefits for the taxi industry. Currently, it costs more than $3,000 a year for taxi permits to operate in four cities — Torrance, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach — that stretch roughly six miles along the Los Angeles County coast. In Silicon Valley, similar annual city-by-city fees can run $13,000. Low’s bill aims to wipe away such charges and replace them with a single payment.

The measure would promote greater competition by allowing taxis to grow their own on-demand apps and other dispatch services with fewer restrictions, said Bruce Schaller, a New York-based consultant who monitors both industries.

Schaller said the taxi industry’s problems go beyond regulation, and cabs will need to dramatically improve their service and reduce their fares.

“Why do people use Uber and Lyft?” Schaller said. “It’s because they’re cheap and they show up. That’s it.”

Low’s bill faces many obstacles. Last year, he wrote legislation that would have turned over taxi regulation to the state, but Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it. The governor’s veto message said he didn’t believe such a major change was warranted. Low’s current bill shifts the burden from cities to counties, but counties don’t want the responsibility.

In a May letter opposing the bill, a representative of the California State Assn. of Counties wrote that counties were ill-equipped to handle taxi regulations without help from cities.

“AB 1069 confuses the relationship between counties and cities by arbitrarily placing the entire burden on the county for taxicab licensure,” the letter said.

Low said he’s open to another entity, such as regional agencies including the Southern California Assn. of Governments in the Los Angeles area, to regulate taxis instead of counties handling them. But he warned that local governments shouldn’t be shortsighted in maintaining strict regulations and high fees that could continue driving taxis out of business.

In that case, Low said, cities “won’t get any of their revenues whatsoever.”

liam.dillon@latimes.com

@dillonliam

ALSO

An overhaul of California’s taxi regulations passes the Legislature

With Uber battle raging, one state lawmaker wants to deregulate the taxi industry

Uber and Lyft are winning at the state Capitol — here’s why

Updates on California politics

WASHINGTON — The extraordinary steps taken by congressional Republicans to save the life of Terri Schiavo have won plaudits from evangelical Christians and other conservative activists, but some Republicans worry about a potential backlash among others who view the intervention as an overbearing use of government power.

Just as Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation allowing federal courts to review whether Schiavo’s feeding tube should be withdrawn, a poll by ABC News found that 70% of those surveyed believed congressional intervention was inappropriate.

Though some GOP strategists have argued that the issue is a political winner for the party because it appeals to religious conservatives, other Republicans warn that the bold maneuver risks alienating swing voters as well as Republicans worried about government invasions of individual privacy.

“It goes beyond shameless politics,” said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster. “It becomes a more crystallized proof point that we are no longer the party of smaller government. We have become a party of ‘It doesn’t matter what size government is as long as it is imposing our set of values.’ ”

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), before voting against the bill Bush later signed, asked: “How deep is this Congress going to reach into the personal lives of each and every one of us?”

Still, some Republican analysts say the immediate poll results — and the concerns raised by Shays and others — are not politically significant because the activists pushing to keep Schiavo alive care more passionately than those opposing that view.

“Intensity matters,” said Gary Bauer, a conservative leader who ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000. “The people who know the most about this controversy are the most likely to believe” that Schiavo should be allowed to live.

The Schiavo controversy does not split lawmakers or the country strictly along ideological lines; many people are influenced as much by their personal experiences as they are by political leanings.

The decisive legislative action on the Schiavo controversy is widely viewed within the political community as a show of strength for social conservatives, who are preparing for even bigger congressional battles.

Many of the activists are urging GOP leaders to move more aggressively this spring to win confirmation of Bush’s judicial nominees.

They argue that the Schiavo case reinforces the importance of placing conservatives in the judiciary.

“This is just one more perfect portrait of why we need to have fair and just men on the bench,” said Lanier Swann, director of government relations for Concerned Women of America, a conservative group that has made the Schiavo case a priority.

Bauer said the Schiavo controversy was the beginning of a much larger debate that would shape U.S. politics for years to come.

“We’re on the cusp of a really gigantic national debate about life and advances in medicine,” Bauer said. The Schiavo controversy “touches in a very important way in the whole debate on the sanctity of life, and it will encourage voters to believe that it is something Republicans feel strongly about.”

The fight over whether to remove the feeding tube that has kept Schiavo alive since a heart malfunction caused severe neurological damage in 1990 has become a cause celebre for the Christian evangelicals and antiabortion activists who were crucial to Bush’s reelection.

The issue came to a head in an extraordinary weekend session of Congress, when lawmakers were recalled from spring recess to vote on a bill to allow Schiavo’s parents to bring the case to federal court.

The political advantages of pursuing the legislation were trumpeted in a GOP staff memo circulated in the Senate late last week, although Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said he had no knowledge of the memo.

“This is a great political issue,” the memo said, because it puts Democrats in a difficult position and because “the pro-life base will be very excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.”

But the ABC poll, conducted by telephone Sunday as Congress was acting, found that 63% supported removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube and 28% opposed it.

The poll also found that among Republicans, Congress’ action did not win strong backing. According to the poll, 58% of Republicans believed the intervention in the case was inappropriate, and 61% supported removing Schiavo’s tube.

The survey’s margin of error for its entire sample of 501 adults was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Among the Republicans surveyed, the margin of error was plus or minus 8 points.

The legislation passed the Senate on Sunday under the chamber’s unanimous consent rules. Three senators were on the floor — Frist, Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.).

In the House, the bill passed at 12:45 a.m. EST Monday, 203 to 58, with 174 members not voting. Supporting it were 156 Republicans and 47 Democrats; opposing it were five Republicans and 53 Democrats.

Some of the conservative critics of Congress’ action say the issue goes to the core of what kind of party the GOP will become. They worry it will further erode the party’s commitment to limiting the role of the federal government.

“Conservatives who have criticized the idea that Washington should run everything ought to be sheepish” about getting involved in the Schiavo case, said David Boaz, an analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

WASHINGTON — President Biden is considering a ban on imports of Russian oil while weighing actions that would boost energy production by autocracies in the hopes of mitigating the effects on American consumers and global energy markets, U.S. officials said.

“What the president is most focused on is ensuring we are continuing to take steps to deliver punishing economic consequences on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin while taking all action necessary to limit the impact to prices at the gas pump,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Monday.

Until now, the economic strangulation of Russia by the West over its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has avoided its robust energy sector, with administration officials suggesting that such a move could weaken the global economy.

But as Russia increases its unrelenting bombardment of Ukrainian cities, political pressure on the West has grown to do more to put pressure on Putin to stop the onslaught. U.S. officials said the Biden administration is considering easing restrictions on imports of oil from Venezuela to alleviate the void left by Russian oil bans, a politically problematic step.

It has also sought to convince Saudi Arabia, which has been under fire from U.S. and European officials over its human rights record, to boost oil production.

Biden spoke Monday for more than an hour with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, although the official White House readout of the conversation did not explicitly state that they discussed a ban on Russian energy.

According to the White House, “the leaders affirmed their determination to continue raising the costs on Russia for its unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine. They also underscored their commitment to continue providing security, economic and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine.”

Psaki said administration officials were also discussing whether the U.S. would send military aircraft to Poland should its leaders provide Soviet-era bombers to support Ukraine, but noted that the White House was not “preventing or blocking or discouraging” officials in Warsaw. “They are a sovereign country. They make their own decisions, but it is not as easy as just moving planes around,” she said.

The U.S. has been reluctant to get ahead of European allies in responding to Putin’s aggression. And while an oil embargo from Washington would have some effect, doing so in concert with Europe would deliver a far greater impact. Europe imports 4 million barrels of Russian oil a day, compared with 700,000 barrels imported daily by the U.S.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said Sunday during an interview with CNN that the administration was indeed exploring the “prospect” of an energy ban “in a coordinated way” with allies, although he did not rule out the possibility that Washington could act on its own to bar Russian oil.

The administration may not have much of a choice. Members of both political parties have introduced bills in both houses of Congress to block such imports.

“We may have to pay more at the pump because of this attack and our bipartisan response, but it is worth it to ensure that Putin pays the price for his paranoid adventurism and his attack on a peaceful democracy,” Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Carmel Valley), who has co-sponsored a bill to ban Russian oil, said in a statement.

Rep. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), who supports the measure, said a Russian oil ban may only have limited success if the U.S. cannot persuade other countries to join the effort.

“I don’t believe Europe and some of the other countries are ready to say no to Russian energy, so that’s the challenge right now,” Correa said in an interview. “Not only does Russia have nukes, but also people have to buy their energy from the Russians.”

Congress is weighing an oil ban as it pushes to pass a measure to send Ukraine billions of dollars in emergency assistance. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Monday called for passage of a $12-billion aid package this week, saying it “will provide both humanitarian and military assistance for Ukraine: funding for refugees, medical supplies, emergency food supplies, as well as funding to support weapons transfers into Ukraine, and help for our eastern flank NATO allies.”

In a letter to House Democrats on Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said Congress intended to pass $10 billion in emergency aid for Ukraine as part of a larger government funding measure. The House is also exploring legislation that would “further isolate” Russia from the world economy, Pelosi said.

Banning Russian oil imports would probably lead to higher prices at the pump in the U.S. and globally. Gas is averaging $4 a gallon nationwide, up from $2.77 a year ago, according to AAA. The average price of gas in California during that same period has risen from $3.75 to $5.34.

In a clear signal of how seriously the Biden administration is considering a Russian oil ban, U.S. officials traveled over the weekend to Caracas, Venezuela, for talks about potentially easing sanctions imposed on the South American nation by the Trump administration in 2019. President Trump took that step after declaring President Nicolas Maduro’s election victory a sham and recognizing another politician, Juan Guaido, as the country’s rightful leader, a position Biden has affirmed.

Those measures built upon similar sanctions imposed by President Obama, signaling the long history of trouble Washington has had with Caracas and its socialist leaders.

The Venezuela economy is reeling, despite sitting on some of the world’s largest oil reserves, and Maduro is likely eager to be free of the sanctions. However, his economy and many of his government agencies are deeply intertwined with Russian assets and advisors. Any lenience by the White House toward Maduro, even if it’s driven by a desire to crack down on Putin, could undercut Biden’s messaging about the existential threat that autocracies present to democracies.

Psaki on Monday batted away questions about a potential rapprochement with Caracas, telling reporters that any easing of sanctions was “leaping several stages ahead” of where talks currently stand.

Complicating matters has been Venezuela’s decision to imprison six executives from the Citgo oil company for the last four years. Five are U.S. citizens and the sixth a U.S. permanent resident. They were convicted in show trials on trumped-up embezzlement charges and other crimes, according to their families and human rights activists.

Psaki said discussions about the release of the men and sanctions relief were taking place “in different channels,” and not tied together.

Republicans, who have seized on the potential energy crisis to call for stepping up domestic fossil fuel production, have already made clear that they will hit the White House hard should it look to offset any ban on Russian oil by looking to foreign suppliers.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio criticized Biden in a tweet Sunday, saying: “Rather than produce more American oil, he wants to replace the oil we buy from one murderous dictator with oil from another murderous dictator.”

SACRAMENTO — After a collapse in state budget negotiations late last week over funding for cities and counties, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pushed to revive his plan Saturday to protect their revenues.

One of the last sticking points in reaching agreement on the $103-billion state budget, the local government provisions have rocked the Capitol for several days and sent city officials across California into a frenzy of last-minute opposition.

The governor is pressuring lawmakers to support a plan under which cities and counties would accept $2.6 billion in cuts over the next two years in exchange for an amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit such cuts in the future.

His latest push for that plan comes days after he walked away from a compromise with Democrats that would give the Legislature more flexibility in how it provides assistance to local government. The governor abandoned the compromise after local leaders rebelled against it, triggering a meltdown in the Legislature. Legislative leaders threw up their hands, and lawmakers headed home for the weekend.

“We are all here today calling on the legislators, and to tell them to go back to Sacramento and to vote for our local government agreement so that the people have their budget,” Schwarzenegger said at a rally before a few dozen police and firefighters Saturday at L.A. City Fire Station 88 in Sherman Oaks, where the governor also filmed scenes for his 2002 movie “Collateral Damage.”

“We were at the home stretch, we were very close to have a deal and a budget, but suddenly the legislators shut down and left Sacramento and went back home.”

The governor demanded an immediate floor vote on the deal he and local leaders had worked out.

Senate President John Burton (D-San Francisco) downplayed Schwarzenegger’s appearances, saying the governor hammering lawmakers at public rallies “doesn’t faze me.”

“Bring it on if you want,” Burton said. “We’ll just let the cards read for themselves. I believe the negotiations with the Legislature and the governor can be done pretty quickly.” He said he had been speaking with the governor and his chief of staff by telephone and believed a budget deal could be reached soon.

The deal the city and county leaders are pushing is simple. It begins with them accepting $1.3 billion in cuts for each of the next two years.

In return, the governor and lawmakers would support a constitutional amendment that would protect their share of the state budget from ever again being cut.

Democrats say that plan is full of problems: It would make it nearly impossible for lawmakers to borrow from cities and counties during a fiscal crisis; it would lock into the Constitution a system that forces local governments to become overly dependent on sales tax, leading too many to become overly reliant on “big box” retail stores, leading to sprawl; and it would give cities and counties priority in the state budget over education, social services and most every government program.

“It gives local government more protection than schools,” Burton said.

Burton called on the local leaders to return to the negotiating table.

He cautioned them not to take their chances on an initiative they have on the November ballot that would prohibit the state from taking any money away from cities and counties ever again.

“The polls show it is going in the dumpster,” Burton said. “If they want to come to the table, good. If they don’t, let them take their chances.”

Standing alongside the governor in Los Angeles on Saturday, however, several big-city mayors said they saw no reason to give in to any Democratic demands.

“We had a deal,” said Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn. “We want that deal to go through.”

Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown said local governments were not the Legislature’s “personal piggy bank.”

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Monday that the predominantly white news media were “bound by their own culture” in reporting and interpreting his historic presidential campaign but added that he has seen “an evolution in the media’s consciousness and its maturity.”

Jackson, questioned during a radio news conference about whether a media racial bias has crippled his campaign, said he could not estimate its impact.

However, he took credit for “educating many members of the media. Some have made better grades than others.”

“I’ve taken the media to the low places. I’ve taken them to the ghettos, the barrios, the reservations,” Jackson said. “The media people covering my campaign know more of America than their publishers do, than their editors do, and, therefore, their job will be to educate their bosses.”

He called on news organizations to be more aggressive in hiring and promoting women and minority members.

In particular, he said, they must be advanced into decision-making positions, where they are participating in “the meetings about what story is going to be covered, what the slants are. There must be a multicultural presence in that room to have a multicultural result.”

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. — This state was such a lost cause for Bernie Sanders the last time he ran for president that the candidate stopped coming here in the crucial stumping days before the 2016 primary election. He got crushed, losing by 47 percentage points.

So the Rev. Al Sharpton on Wednesday morning found himself doing a double take to be here, of all places, introducing the Vermont senator at his candidate breakfast as the nationwide Democratic front-runner.

“Many never thought ‘Bernie Sanders’ and ‘front-runner’ would be in the same sentence,” said Sharpton, the civil rights activist whose blessing is eagerly sought as Democratic candidates seek inroads with black voters.

At a time when Sanders’ rivals are in a full state of panic over his momentum and have shifted from ignoring the democratic socialist to putting all their energy into trying to stop him, they are particularly alarmed by the traction he has been getting in this state, where some 60% of Democratic primary voters are African American.

It reflects the depth and durability of the Sanders coalition, which has exploded in size with his success.

“The question black folks in the South were asking before was: ‘Who is Bernie Sanders?’” said Justin Bamberg, a South Carolina lawmaker and civil rights attorney supporting Sanders. “Now, it is not ‘Who is Bernie Sanders?’ It is ‘Why not Bernie Sanders?’”

Sanders may not win here in South Carolina; the latest polls continue to show Joe Biden winning and holding the largest share of African American voters. But there’s little question that Sanders has drawn substantially more support from black voters this time around than four years ago. His message hasn’t shifted at all. His appeal to nonwhite voters has.

“We have come a long, long way” in South Carolina, Sanders told a raucous crowd at a rally here Wednesday.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debate in January 2016 in Charleston, S.C. Sanders lost the state by 47 percentage points that year.

(Timothy A. Clary / AFP-Getty Images)

Only 53% of black voters nationwide had a favorable view of Sanders at this point in the last presidential race, according to Gallup, nearly 30 percentage points lower than for opponent Hillary Clinton. But a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found black voters this cycle just as inclined to vote for Sanders as for any other candidate — a turnabout from months ago, when the same poll had Sanders far behind.

In South Carolina, the Sanders campaign absorbed the lessons of the senator’s flop here in 2016. In the intervening years, Sanders and surrogates have returned to the state again and again, visiting its small towns and urban centers, knocking on doors, networking with local officials, just listening. In this state, politics is as much about who you know as what you know. And the Sanders operation got to know a lot of communities.

“He has learned from his mistakes,” said Antjuan Seawright, a South Carolina political consultant not aligned with any candidate in the primary. “He’s learned how to engage, how to prioritize certain communities, where to make investments. His team on the ground has figured out where votes are and who they can activate.”

The success Sanders has had in the few states that have voted already also plays big, but that momentum only goes so far. Sanders learned that in 2016, after his shellacking of Clinton in New Hampshire did nothing for him here and in other Southern states. And Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., is learning that lesson anew as he struggles to translate strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire into votes in the South.

The Sanders campaign and Our Revolution, the progressive organization launched by his backers, never stopped building infrastructure here after 2016. They doubled down on efforts to reach potential voters who weren’t politically engaged. The Sanders staff here is twice the size it was in 2016. At this point in that election cycle, Sanders had just five endorsements from state lawmakers here. Now he has racked up at least 36.

At his rally Wednesday, Sanders boasted that his campaign has knocked on 200,000 doors in South Carolina this cycle.

As rival campaigns pursue consultant-driven strategies centered on ads, news releases and press conferences designed to cast doubt on Sanders’ ability to go the distance, the senator’s grass-roots approach has been drawing in voters like Rebecca Bentley.

Bentley didn’t vote for Sanders in 2016; she didn’t vote for anyone. “I didn’t have any political views,” she said. “I was completely uninvolved.”

The 29-year-old who has been on Medicaid much of her life and has also lived in federally subsidized housing was inspired to register to vote by Sanders’ agenda on healthcare and other social programs.

“It really resonated with me that someone was actually listening,” said Bentley, who described herself as Hispanic and Native American.

It is a familiar story in this state, where the Republican leadership refused to participate in the expansion of Medicaid that was offered to states by the Affordable Care Act.

“The issues Sanders is talking about are resonating here,” said Bruce Ransom, a political science professor at Clemson University. “The Trump administration is talking about how well the economy is doing, and folks here are not doing that well. They are living in a state where the Medicaid expansion did not take place. Many of them would like to make $15 an hour,” as Sanders is proposing for the minimum wage.

As rivals focus intensely on branding Sanders as unelectable in November, many voters aligning with him for the first time are seeing just the opposite.

Among them is Dawn Pemberton, who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 and is now all in for Sanders.

“That moderate, middle box just doesn’t seem to be working for our country,” said Pemberton, 48, who recently left a job in real estate.

Gerry Elliot also supported Clinton in 2016. “My more pragmatic head took over,” he said. “I thought Hillary could win. I didn’t think Sanders could win.”

Now, the 51-year-old pastry chef is not so sure. He is wavering between Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. “I’m looking for something different,” he said. “I just want change in the status quo.”

Biden’s poor showing in the states that have voted so far has some voters reconsidering their initial instinct to align with a pragmatist establishment candidate who had seemed best equipped to beat Trump.

“A former vice president, particularly one under Barack Obama, should not be getting crushed in any state,” Bamberg said. “You should not be getting blown out. People here have eyes and ears. They see it. They want someone they feel can win long term.”

So some voters in South Carolina are giving Sanders a fresh look.

The campaign officials and volunteers who in 2016 would encounter a voter already aligned with Hillary Clinton at nearly every door they knocked on tell a very different story now. Sanders is just as much a household name.

Actor Kendrick Sampson, an Angeleno and Texas native who was here campaigning for Sanders in 2016, said he understood the skepticism voters had at the time.

“You don’t come into Texas talking about nothing — I don’t care how much I agree — if we don’t know or trust you,” he said. “Especially if you are not from Texas. People [in South Carolina] just didn’t know who he was.”

Sampson is back again talking to voters at their houses, at barbershops, in restaurants, and the reception is different. “Now they know who he is, and they know his brand,” Sampson said. “And now they trust him.”

Reporting from Washington — A month after tweeting that he might order FEMA to cut federal disaster funding to California fire victims, President Trump declined to renew that threat and indicated that talks with state officials were going well.

Speaking to The Times and several regional newspapers in the Oval Office, Trump said Wednesday that he and Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke by phone about two weeks ago, after his Jan. 9 tweet that he had ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency not to send more disaster funding to state officials “unless they get their act together, which is unlikely.”

Asked Wednesday if he still thinks the federal government shouldn’t give California any more money until the state changes its forest management practices, Trump refrained from directly repeating the threat, but said something has to be done to keep California from burning year after year.

“I told my people, I said we cannot continue to spend billions of dollars, billions and billions of dollars,” Trump said. “Forest fires are totally preventable. They shouldn’t happen.”

Trump said he was encouraged by his talk with Newsom.

“He was very respectful as to my point of view,” Trump said. “I think he agrees with me. I respect the fact that he called. The forests are, because of whatever reason, … extraordinarily flammable, to put it mildly.”

Newsom’s spokesman Nathan Click said the governor and president had a “respectful conversation about the critical federal-state partnership necessary for emergency preparedness and disaster relief.”

“The governor will continue doing everything in his power to help the survivors of wildfires and make sure the state is prepared for future disasters,” Click said.

Environmental experts say the primary cause of increased fires in California is climate change and drought. The Trump administration has blamed poor forest management, though critics say such claims are misleading and in many cases false.

Thousands of Californians are still recovering from two massive fires this past fall that together killed nearly 90 people and burned thousands of structures.

Trump’s tweeted threat alarmed state and local officials. For weeks the White House and FEMA have provided no clarity about whether such an order would be implemented, and when. Even the California congressional delegation struggled to get information about what might happen.

For months the president has been critical of California’s forest management process, saying state environmental laws are too stringent and keep downed timber and other detritus such as leaves and fallen limbs from being removed before they can catch fire.

“It’s called forest management. You have very poor forest management,” Trump said. “You need good forest management and you will have either no forest fires or very small forest fires that are easily put out.”

Critics accuse the administration of trying to pressure California officials to open the state’s forests to increased logging.

The bulk of California’s forest land is either federal property or private property, and outside the state’s authority to manage, but Trump said California’s strict state environmental laws keep the federal government from managing its lands in the state properly.

“In many cases because of the state environmental rules, the federal government isn’t even allowed to go in and clean them out,” Trump said.

In November, the Camp fire destroyed the town of Paradise in the Sierra Nevada foothills, killing 86 people and destroying more than 13,900 homes in the area; and the Woolsey fire in Los Angeles and Ventura counties left three dead and leveled about 1,500 structures in an unwooded area.

State politicians have implored Trump to remember what he saw when he visited Paradise in November to tour the destroyed area. He spoke at length Wednesday about his shock at the extent of the damage and how quickly the fire moved into and destroyed the town.

“That was a lot of bad luck,” Trump said. “It was dry. You had 80 mile-per-hour winds. It was a very flammable area.”

The latest from Washington »

More stories from Sarah D. Wire »

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — In Waco, Tex., Richard A. Gephardt kicked off his Super Tuesday campaign by deriding Michael S. Dukakis as the Democratic presidential candidate with the most money and “the least message.”

The next day, in Deerfield Beach, Fla., Dukakis castigated Gephardt as “the prince of darkness” for appealing to the angry side of America with his complaints about unfair foreign economic competition.

In part, the two candidates generally deemed the front-runners in the Democratic race, who came here last week for a debate before the cream of the Southern Democratic Party, are flinging rhetorical brickbats at each other because of the 20-state treasure-trove of delegates up for grabs in Super Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses.

Another Struggle

But Massachusetts Gov. Dukakis, the winner of the New Hampshire primary, and Missouri Rep. Gephardt, the winner of the Iowa caucuses, are locked in another struggle as well, one that transcends even as rich a prize as Super Tuesday. At stake is nothing less than the heart, mind and future of the Democratic Party.

And that deeper struggle has injected a bitter, biting element into the campaign because the cleavages between the two leaders are sharply drawn along class, cultural and regional lines.

To put the matter in starkly simple terms, Dukakis, with his core support in the suburbs and among upscale city dwellers, reflects the beliefs and values of the party’s Eastern liberal Establishment, and the interests of the nation’s thriving bicoastal economy.

Gephardt, hailing from America’s economically hard-hit hinterland with his Missouri legacy of Harry S. Truman populism, is striving to speak to and for working-class voters. Such voters have been the foundation of classic Democratic majorities of the sort the party has seldom managed to assemble in recent years.

“Nothing is ever 100% black and white in politics,” says Southern pollster Claibourne H. Darden Jr. As he suggests, the realities of the immediate battle for votes are so complex that the underlying struggle may not be precisely reflected in the election returns across Dixie or the rest of the nation.

“But there’s a real socioeconomic division here,” Darden says. “Gephardt is after the ‘Bubba’ vote–the good old boys, the middle-middle section of the Democratic Party. And Dukakis is the darling of the educated liberals and the suburbanites.”

In a sense, their battle is a sequel to the 1984 contest between Walter F. Mondale and Gary Hart, in which those two argued essentially over whether the Democratic Party needed to change. Although Mondale won the nomination, he lost the election and thus the argument: Virtually everyone entered the 1988 campaign agreeing that the Democratic Party needed to change.

The battle between Dukakis and Gephardt will help to settle the remaining question: In what new direction will the party now move?

Of course, Dukakis and Gephardt have to reckon with two other major rivals in the Southern contests–the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr.

Jackson is expected to run very well here Tuesday, perhaps capturing more states than any of his rivals. But most analysts doubt that he can sustain that success outside the South on the scale needed to make him a serious threat for the nomination.

As for Gore, few believe the only white Southerner in the race can do well enough in his home region to make up for his lack of achievement in the early contests elsewhere.

Meanwhile, what seems to be happening in the competition between Gephardt and Dukakis is that their debate is redefining the governing grammar of the Democratic Party, creating a new syntax in which the definitive phrases are not “liberal” and “conservative” but rather “change” and “pain.”

To a considerable extent the dividing line between Dukakis’ supporters and Gephardt’s backers is based on the degree to which any group of voters feels hurt by current economic conditions and prospects and the urgency with which they want to alter those conditions.

By using his argument against unfair trade practices as an expression of the case for broader change, “Gephardt has found a clean way to tap into the anger of voters who feel the circumstances of the economy are working against them,” said Paul Tully, former political director of Dukakis’ campaign.

Last January, just before the Iowa caucuses, Gephardt defined his populism in the rhetoric of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he described as “the greatest populist of the century.” Recalling F.D.R.’s celebrated vow to crush “the forces of greed and privilege,” Gephardt called that dictum “the legacy and the life force” of the Democratic Party.

Listen to Gephardt 10 days ago at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Atlanta, where he warned 3,500 Democrats that America was in decline and demanded change to reverse the tide.

“I want to put a Democrat in the White House in 1988 so we can make America move and soar again,” he declared. “But to move in that direction we must change America in fundamental ways. That’s what the election in 1988 is all about.

Must Stand for Change

“A lot of people don’t want change,” Gephardt warned. “Strong forces resist change for a whole lot of different reasons. You must understand that if you want to change America the only way it will happen is if you stand for change in the Tuesday, March 8, primary.”

This message, says Tully, has visceral appeal to “those Democrats who live in places where the economy is threatening or not encouraging.” Moreover, Gephardt’s insistence on tougher trade policies, denounced as “protectionist’ by the well-educated middle-class supporters of Dukakis, appears to strike a responsive chord among the blue-collar workers Gephardt is trying to reach.

For many of them, political professionals point out, the idea that it is time for the United States to get back at foreign competitors has not only economic significance but also patriotic resonance.

Because of this, many Democratic politicians believe this issue could help win back former Democrats who have turned away from the party and supported Ronald Reagan in recent years because they believed that Democratic national leaders were namby-pambies in dealing with foreign nations.

“The trade issue is a metaphor for the sense that people have that they have lost control of their economic destiny, for the sense that many people feel that ‘my standard of living is slipping, we’re drifting and we’re slipping,’ ” says Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), a Gephardt supporter.

Dukakis is for change too, Tully asserts. But the Massachusetts governor is a self-decribed optimist. And the kind of change for which he argues is more businesslike and less impassioned, more methodical and less fundamental than what Gephardt preaches.

“It is more of a roll up your sleeves and get on with the work approach,” Tully says. “And it appeals to people who want change but who have a lower level of anxiety than Gephardt’s constituents.”

Central to Dukakis’ optimistic view and to his message of moderate change is the economic recovery in Massachusetts, for which he claims a large share of credit and which he seems to argue has almost unlimited relevance elsewhere in the nation.

“Over the last dozen years I’ve seen the Massachusetts economy turn around and come back strong,” Dukakis declared in a speech last fall on economic policy. “And over the past few months, campaigning around this country, I’ve seen example after example of the kind of strength and determination and spirit it will take to get our fiscal house in order and restore our competitiveness abroad.”

If Gephardt seems to respond to anger and frustration among the voters, Dukakis appears to try to smooth over grievances.

When the Democrats hold their nominating convention in July, Dukakis told the Atlanta dinner audience that Gephardt also addressed, “I hope we as a party will have learned the lessons of division. Let’s make 1988 a year for the promise of opportunity and not the politics of resentment.”

Ultimately, the argument between these two points of view will be settled at the ballot box.

And ironically, the circumstances of these two candidates and the special nature of those who normally vote in Democratic primaries suggests that–as in 1984–the apostle of fundamental change could be hard-pressed to win the nomination, while the moderate could lose in November.

More Electable

A good many Democrats who have reservations about Gephardt’s policies, particularly his views on trade, are nonetheless interested in the congressman’s candidacy because they think he would be more electable than Dukakis in November.

“Dukakis’ message is competence in domestic policy and the rule of law in foreign policy,” says Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), one of the House members who–along with many leading Southern politicians–gathered here at Williamsburg for a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate-to-conservative office holders. “And, frankly, I’m not convinced it’s a winning message.

“The Gephardt message is very good for blue-collar workers,” continues Berman, who will not decide who to back until after Super Tuesday. “It could help us get back people we have been having trouble holding in general elections, people who were attracted to Reagan.”

Other Democrats are blunter in their assessment: “Dukakis looks like another 49-state blowout to me,” says a high-level Southern labor leader who declined to be identified. He thinks that Dukakis could not draw any significant amount of votes beyond what Mondale received in 1984, when he carried only Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

By contrast, this official believes that Gephardt would “bring the white middle-class and blue-collar vote in the South back to the Democrats. We have to be a party that’s not just interested in redistributing wealth, that’s also interested in helping the middle class.”

But for all Gephardt’s potential assets in the fall, some think he may never have the chance to cash in on them because of the practical realities governing Democratic primary politics, particularly in the South.

“(Dukakis’) is an elitist campaign,” Martin Linsky, a public policy specialist at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, says. “But the primary in the South is a setup for him. He gets the suburban, liberal upper-middle-class vote.” And, as Linsky points out, these are the voters most likely to go to the polls on Tuesday.

Gephardt Might Struggle

Moreover, while Gephardt’s message of change gives him much broader potential appeal than Dukakis, many professionals believe that without the financial and organizational resources Dukakis has amassed, Gephardt will have to struggle to get his potential supporters to the ballot box.

And Gephardt’s ability to win votes by emphasizing basic differences from Dukakis is complicated somewhat by the fact that neither man’s origins quite match his current billing.

As Gephardt’s rivals never tire of pointing out, while serving as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus he was widely considered to be a fixture of the congressional hierarchy. And the legislative connections he fashioned with lobbyists for business and labor have helped finance his presidential campaign–to the tune of more than $350,000, or about 6% of his total contributions.

“Dick, don’t give us that Establishment stuff when you’re out there taking their money,” Dukakis snapped at Gephardt during the debate here last week. And the Dukakis campaign released a negative commercial later in the week attacking Gephardt on just the same grounds.

For his part, Dukakis entered politics sounding more like a neoliberal than a traditional liberal. And even today his views embody his natural frugality and his abounding faith in the efficacy of high technology and rational management.

Dukakis campaign chairman Paul Brountas, who has known the governor all his political life, says: “Certainly Michael Dukakis is a progressive”–a term Brountas prefers to “liberal.” But he adds: “He’s very conservative fiscally. And he’s run the state in a tight-fisted way.”

In the end, many believe the outcome of the Gephardt-Dukakis battle in Dixie may depend on whether Gephardt can reach the voters whose anger is fueling his candidacy.

Chris Scott, president of the North Carolina AFL-CIO, contends that Gephardt’s argument for retaliation against unfair trade practices has great appeal in his state, where the textile industry has been hard hit by foreign imports.

“Gephardt’s trade message can romp and stomp in this state,” Scott says. “But I don’t know if Gephardt can get the message out.”

In his first five years as California’s lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom made more than $4 million from his wineries, restaurants, hotels and other hospitality businesses.

And that’s on top of his government salary, which is $142,577 a year.

The former mayor of San Francisco is the first candidate in the 2018 race for governor to release his state and federal tax returns. He filed jointly with his wife, the actress and filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom. On Monday, Newsom allowed reporters to review — but not photocopy — six years of the couple’s returns, from 2010 to 2015, at the San Francisco offices of his campaign consultants, SCN Strategies.

Newsom, the early front-runner in the June 2018 primary, cites his business expertise as a key credential in his campaign for governor. With the help of the wealthy Getty family, he opened a San Francisco wine store in 1992, expanding it over the last 25 years into a network of nearly two dozen businesses known as PlumpJack Group. They include Napa Valley wineries, hotels in Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs, and bars and restaurants in San Francisco.

Here’s what you should know about the tax documents:

The Newsoms reported an average of $1.4 million in income from 2010 to 2015

The Newsoms’ tax returns provided a window into a complex web of the family’s financial interests throughout California. The couple’s lowest adjusted gross income since 2011 was $1.37 million in 2013.

The Newsoms’ average income and tax bills in the years 2010-2015 were:

• Adjusted gross income: $1.4 million.
• Federal tax rate: 26.4%.
• Rate of charitable giving compared to income: 6.8%.
• Federal taxes paid: $384,687.
• State taxes paid: $139,146.

PlumpJack Group was founded by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom as PlumpJack Wine in 1992. Newsom is still a partner in the company, which has expanded to include restaurants, bars and resorts in addition to three wineries and two wine shops, including this store in San Francisco. (Phil Willon/Los Angeles Times)

(Phil Willon/Los Angeles Times)

2015 was a good year for the Newsoms

The couple, who now live in Marin County, reported an adjusted gross income of $1,720,383 in 2015, the highest amount they earned in the past six years. The Newsoms’ total tax bill came to $753,866, with $568,333 going to the Internal Revenue Service and $185,533 to the California treasury. They donated $62,973 to charity, including a $1,000 contribution to the Bay Area Discovery Museum.

The Newsoms’ biggest income source came from Airelle Wines Inc., which runs Napa wineries, at roughly $790,000.

They made hundreds of thousands of dollars selling silver bars — and donated more than $100,000 to charities each year

• The tax returns show the Newsoms made hundreds of thousands of dollars trading silver bars during Newsom’s tenure as lieutenant governor. In 2011 alone, they turned a profit of $499,452 on the sale of silver bars.

• Newsom’s 2013 book, “Citizenville,” appeared to be a moderate money-maker. From 2011 to 2015, Newsom reported a total of $370,325 in income as an author and by working in media. A spokesman for the lieutenant governor said he was unsure if some of that total included money Newsom was paid for his former talk show on Current TV, “The Gavin Newsom Show,” which aired in 2012 and 2013.

• The Newsoms reported an average of $102,212 in charitable donations each year — nearly 7 percent of their income. But apart from clothing and toy donations to the Salvation Army and Goodwill, it was unclear which charities received money from the couple. Because the Newsoms hold interests in a wide network of partnerships, corporations and trusts, and most of their charitable donations were channeled through them, it is unclear which organizations received the money. A spokesman for Newsom’s political campaign said some of the charities the couple donated money to included the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Best Buddies and Planned Parenthood LA.

Newsom owns a Tesla, and received tax credit for it

Over the years, the Newsoms have received a few tax breaks for their rapidly growing, environmentally conscious family.

• Newsom received a $7,500 “Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit” on his 2012 taxes after buying a Tesla Model S.
• He received a $500 tax credit in 2012 for installing energy-efficient doors, windows and insulation.
• In 2010, the Newsoms’ daughter Montana was their only dependent. Then came their son Hunter in 2011. Daughter Brooklynn arrived in 2013. The Newsoms’ fourth child, Dutch, will make his grand entrance on the 2016 return.

Releasing his taxes ratchets up the pressure on his rivals to do the same

Newsom’s release of his tax returns puts pressure on his rivals to make theirs public too. The move could be a sign that the lieutenant governor is banking on revelations that he thinks could be useful to his campaign, such as information detailing Antonio Villaraigosa’s income sources in the years since he left office as mayor of Los Angeles.

Villaraigosa and Newsom’s other chief rival, state Treasurer John Chiang, have agreed to make public their tax returns, but have not yet specified when they will do so. Another candidate, Delaine Eastin, a former superintendent of public instruction, has also vowed to release her tax returns.

A spokesman for the leading Republican in the race, venture capitalist John Cox, said it was too early to say whether he would make his tax returns public.

phil.willon@latimes.com

Twitter: @philwillon

michael.finnegan@latimes.com

Twitter: @finneganLAT

ALSO

This is how much money the candidates running to be California’s next governor have raised

Rivalry in the air as Newsom and Villaraigosa march with Armenians in Los Angeles

Who will be California’s next governor? New poll shows Newsom leads with 1 in 3 voters undecided

Nina J. Easton does us a disservice by attempting to relate so closely the ‘60s violence of the Left and the ‘90s violence of the Right (“America, the Enemy,” June 18).

In terms of tragedy, the Oklahoma bombing stands alone, its carnage having exceeded by plenty any other terrorist act in U.S. history. It was designed to kill and maim as many people as possible. The Far Left simply hasn’t operated in that coldblooded a manner. For example, the explosives planted in 1970 in a Wisconsin ROTC building by the ultra-left Weathermen were timed to go off at 4 a.m., when few would be present.

The right-wing militias address no social ills; they tend only to their paranoid fantasies. By contrast, in an earlier day, the Black Panthers swaggered menacingly with weapons bared but also established breakfast programs to feed inner-city children.

The violent Left has taken hostages, blown up buildings, incited riots and, like their right-wing counterparts, imagined a world where government agents were hidden behind every door. But societal benefits like Social Security, equal voting rights and child-labor laws were initially espoused only by the Left, which worked tirelessly to bring these simple manifestations of fairness into mainstream political dialogue.

Conversely, right-wing militias exist only to prepare for, and eventually wage, war. They arm themselves against phantoms, against enemies so ill-defined that they could be pointing a gun at you or me–or anyone at all.

Searching through the rambling, angry diatribe that the militias spew over the airwaves and web sites, one cannot find even a hint of goodwill for humankind, or any sort of notion for a better world, however cocky or deranged. No, the right-wing militias discuss only war: how to plan, train for and eventually execute assaults on people who are different than they are, people whose skin color is different, whose political beliefs differ from those of the militia.

The Left in this country has given us a legacy–a mixed one, to be sure, but a rich history that includes organizing laborers and bread lines as well as violent cell groups. For every rock thrown, there have been hundreds of jobs saved and social benefits secured as a result of left-wing agitation in America. Right-wing militias are simply a powder keg waiting to blow.

Unfortunately, Easton has offered the raucous Right a fig leaf, behind which they can continue their frightening march to battle.

Winston Steward

Los Angeles

*

Easton fails to comprehend that political and moral consciousness undergoes changes during times of massive paradigm shifts. Her article compares and equates very different sets of people and differing sets of paradigms. It reads like one of those “high-concept” duds that the film industry makes because the marketing departments likes the pitch.

“America the Enemy” relies on the repetition of the premise “If ‘A’ existed in the 1960s Left, then ‘B’ exists in the 1990s Right.” It’s as if the force of a grammatical structure conveys meaning, even when the data doesn’t wash. Despite occasional accuracies that either A or B did in fact exist, the common or even causal relationship implied in the “if . . . then” structure usually does not exist.

Someone who experienced either period, or who did the necessary homework on either era, or who could handle Tom Hayden and Richard Flacks as resources rather than as sources of cognitive dissonance would certainly have qualms about getting this piece into print.

Seeing patterns that don’t exist, and linking unconnected things, are signals of the paranoid style in American politics described by historian Richard Hofstadter. Perhaps bad mental processes really are viral. However, a paranoid style in American journalism will not do.

Arthur M. Eisenson

Los Angeles

*

“America The Enemy” was a typical oversimplification of a complex issue. It will probably come as an unpleasant surprise to Easton and many others that the NRA has more than a few members, black and white, who are more truly liberal than those who favor the disarming of ordinary citizens. The NRA is one of the few subjects on which it is possible for Left and Right to agree.

Art Volkman

Inglewood

*

The story comparing the bombers of the ‘60s and ‘90s was terrible.

The cover matched photographs of the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion with Oklahoma City, but in the Greenwich Village case, the only people blown up were the bomb-makers themselves. Inside the magazine, a photograph of Tom Hayden in 1969 was matched with one of Timothy McVeigh–completely outrageous.

Hayden never blew up anybody. What is going on at The Times?

Jon Wiener

Los Angeles

*

Comparing ‘90s militias with ‘60s Marxist radicals was a masterpiece of liberal disinformation.

To accurately frame today’s political reality, one must start with the premise that the ‘60s radicals–in the form of state Sen. Tom Hayden, our hapless boy President Bill Clinton and their ilk–have taken over the government and are aggressively moving to destroy the Constitution, as Clinton’s budgetary, crime and anti-terrorism legislation proves beyond a doubt. Add in 30 years of irresponsible deficit spending by liberals in both major parties and it becomes obvious that the government will very soon be intentionally bankrupt. A general economic collapse and a depression will inevitably follow–all according to plan.

The militias are only reacting to these not-so-veiled attacks on the Constitution and preparing for civil warfare, the only logical upshot to this kind of treachery.

Loyal Americans who form legal militias in support of a limited democratic republic are our future, if this country and the Constitution are to survive into the the millennium.

You aren’t going to be able to hide that fact much longer.

Michael A. Pacer

Glendora

CAREFREE, Ariz. — Elizabeth H. paused recently outside the post office in this small, high-desert community, not far from where Easy Street meets Nonchalant Avenue.

She felt neither easy nor nonchalant.

“I think the climate imposed by the Trump administration is really sad and scary,” said Elizabeth, who asked to withhold her last name to avoid being attacked for the views she expressed.

“I don’t like the way that ICE is being used to bully citizens and even just people who are brown,” she continued. “And I don’t like that governors of blue states are being shut out while governors of red states are being welcomed. I just don’t think he treats us like we’re all Americans.”

For his part, Anthony D. finds little not to like about President Trump. He, too, asked not to use his last name, as did several others who agreed to talk politics.

“We finally don’t have a— in office that are destroying our country and worrying about everybody else in the world,” said Anthony, 66, a plumbing contractor and proudly blunt-spoken New York native. (Just like Trump, he pointed out.) “I mean, his tariffs are working. The negotiations are working. I just see a lot of positive coming out of that office.”

Even so, there’s something that bothers him: The way so many fellow citizens view the president and his America First agenda.

“Most people don’t like what he says, but look what he’s doing,” Anthony said as the late-morning crowd trickled into an upscale North Scottsdale shopping center. “You can hate the person, but don’t hate the message. He’s trying to do the right thing.”

Here in central Arizona, a prime battleground in November’s midterm election, there is precious little agreement about Trump, his policies and motivations.

Supporters see the president turning things around after four disastrous years of Joe Biden. Critics see him turning the country into a place they barely recognize.

There is puzzlement on both sides.

Over what others believe. Over how others can possibly believe what they believe, see the things they see and perceive Trump the way they perceive him.

And although some are eager for the midterm elections as a way to corral the president — “I don’t think they should only impeach, I think they should imprison,” Brent Bond, a 59-year-old Scottsdale artist, said of his hopes for a Democratic Congress — others fear an end to Trump’s nearly unfettered reign.

Or that nothing will change, regardless of what happens at the polls in November.

“The fact is, Trump is going to keep Trumping until he’s done,” said Elizabeth H., who’s semiretired at age 55 after a career in financial services. “My only relief is that he’s an old, old man and he’s not going to be here forever.”

Brent Bond would like to see Trump imprisoned, not just impeached.

(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)

Arizona’s 1st Congressional District climbs from northeastern Phoenix to the mountainous heart of the Sonoran Desert. It takes in the affluent enclaves of Scottsdale and Paradise Valley and — where the urban sprawl finally yields to cactus, palo verde and other flora — Carefree and the Old West-themed Cave Creek.

It is the whitest, wealthiest and best-educated of Arizona’s nine congressional districts, home to numerous upscale resorts, major medical campuses and a large population of retirees comfortably settled in one of many gated communities.

Affordability, as in struggling just to get by, is not a pressing issue here.

In 2020, Biden carried the district 50% to 49%. Four years later, Trump beat Kamala Harris 51% to 48%.

(The Down Ballot, which crunches election data, rated Arizona’s 1st District the median of 435 congressional districts nationwide, meaning in 2024 half were redder on the presidential level and half were bluer.)

For more than a decade, the area has been represented by Republican Dave Schweikert, a local political fixture since the 1990s.

He’s had to fight hard for reelection in recent years as the district, like the whole of Arizona, has grown more competitive. Rather than run again, Schweikert announced he would give up his seat to try for governor. The result is a free-for-all and one of the relatively few toss-up House races anywhere in the country.

A passel of candidates is running and the result will help determine whether Democrats, who need to flip three seats, will seize control of the House in November.

Despite those high stakes, however, the race doesn’t seem to have generated much voter interest, at least not yet. In dozens of interviews across the district, it was the relentless Trump who drew the most attention, admiration and exasperation.

Moe Modjeski, a supporter, allowed as how the president “is no altar boy.”

Even so, “I’ll take his policies over someone that might be nice and polite,” said the 69-year-old Scottsdale resident, a financial advisor who cited the sky-scraping stock market as one example of Trump’s success. “I mean, gas is about half the price it was a year or two ago.”

But for Liz R., who’s “never been a sky-is-falling type,” it certainly feels that way. The 75-year-old cited “everything from tariffs to ICE to destroying the healthcare system and controls for pollution.”

“I lived through the ‘60s and 70s and can’t remember a time when I feared so much for the future of our country,” said Liz, a retired medical technologist.

She’ll vote for a Democrat in November — to put a check on Trump, not because the Carefree resident has great faith in the party or its direction.

“I wish the Dems would get it together and maybe we could get more of a centrist that could unite and not get hung up on some of these social issues,” she said. “There’s a lot of economic issues, bread-and-butter issues, and I think that’s why the Republicans won [in 2024], because of the problems with immigration and inflation.”

As a border state, Arizona has long been at the forefront of the political fight over immigration. It was here lawmakers passed — and opponents spent years battling — legislation that effectively turned police into immigration officers, requiring them to demand the papers of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally

Thomas Campbell, with Keegan and Guinness, blamed blue-state politicians for any overreach by ICE agents.

(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)

Now that aggressive approach has become national policy, which is fine by Thomas Campbell, a retired architect and staunch Trump backer. He blamed any enforcement overreach on blue-state lawmakers.

“For some reason, the Democrats have decided they want to side with the criminals, so they don’t allow their police departments to cooperate,” said Campbell, 72, who stopped outside Paradise Valley’s town hall while running errands with his Irish setters, Guinness and Keegan. “If that wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t be any” controversy over ICE’s tactics.

Martha Cornelison agreed the border with Mexico needed to be secured and that serious lawbreakers should be deported.

But why, she wondered, are immigration agents scooping up honest taxpayers, parents with children born in the U.S. and others keeping on the straight and narrow?

“I think they’re going after the wrong people,” said the 76-year-old Scottsdale retiree as a friend, Lily, nodded in agreement. The two were sharing a bench in Scottsdale’s pueblo-inspired civic plaza, a nearby fountain burbling in the 80-degree sunshine.

“I think we need to look at our county jails, look at our city jails,” said Cornelison, who made her living selling large appliances. “How many illegal immigrants are, say, in Florence, which is our state prison? Send them back. Don’t go after Mr. Gonzalez who’s doing my lawn. Empty out our prisons.”

Back at the North Scottsdale shopping center, Denise F. was walking Chase, her Shih Tzu, past a parking lot brimming with Teslas, Mercedes and Cadillac SUVs.

The 73-year-old voted for Trump because she couldn’t abide Harris. But she’s disgusted with the president.

“I don’t like the division in the country. I think Trump thinks he’s a king,” said Denise, a retired banker. “He’s poking the bear with Venezuela and Greenland, Iran” — she poked the air as she named each country — “to see who he can engage in a possible war, which is not the way I think the United States should be.”

As Denise was finishing up, Anthony D., her friend and neighbor, strolled up and joined the conversation, offering his laudatory view of the president. “Trump’s a businessman and he’s running the country like a business,” Anthony said, as Denise looked on impassively.

“How did I do?” he asked after saying his piece.

“Great,” Denise replied amiably and the two walked off together, Chase between them.

Two years ago, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass went to Sherman Oaks to cut a quick campaign ad for a trusted ally: Councilmember Nithya Raman.

Standing next to Bass, Raman looked into the camera and praised the mayor’s work on homelessness, saying she was “honored” to have her support.

“I couldn’t be prouder to work alongside her,” Raman said.

That video, recorded at a get-out-the-vote rally for Raman’s reelection campaign, feels like a political lifetime ago. On Feb. 7, Raman launched a surprise bid to unseat Bass, saying the city is at a “breaking point” and no longer capable of providing basic services.

Raman’s entry into the race, hours before the filing deadline, shocked the city’s political elite and infuriated the mayor’s supporters. Some observers called it a betrayal of Shakespearean proportions.

Raman’s name had appeared on a list of Bass endorsers just weeks earlier. Bass’ support for Raman’s 2024 reelection bid had helped the councilmember earn 50.7% of the vote and avoid a messy runoff.

“How can she treat a relationship like this, and dispose of it once it’s served its purpose?” said Julio Esperias, a Democratic Party activist who volunteered with Raman’s 2024 campaign at Bass’ request. “It’s a breach of trust, a betrayal, and it’s kind of hard for me to stomach at the moment.”

In 2024, Bass — then at the peak of her popularity — was featured prominently in Raman’s campaign mailers. She sent canvassers to knock on voters’ doors. A speech Bass delivered at Raman’s rally in Sherman Oaks was turned into a social media video with stirring background music.

Councilwoman Nithya Raman talks to attendees during an election night party held by the Democratic Socialists of America – LA chapter at The Greyhound on Nov. 4 in Los Angeles.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

That video, along with other posts highlighting Bass’ support for her, still appears on Raman’s Instagram page, which now promotes her run for mayor.

Bass, politically bruised over her handling of last year’s devastating Palisades fire, now faces an insurgent campaign from one of the City Council’s savviest players.

Esperias said he regrets helping Raman claw back the endorsement of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party in 2023, after it nearly went to her opponent.

Bass, for her part, has downplayed any hard feelings, saying she intends to run on her record — including her collaboration with Raman. Asked if she viewed Raman’s candidacy as a betrayal, she responded: “That’s not significant now.”

Mayor Karen Bass speaks before signing a rent stabilization ordinance passed by the Los Angeles City Council, the first update to the ordinance in nearly 40 years, at Strategic Actions for a Just Economy in Los Angeles Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2025.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

“I will tell you that it was a surprise, absolutely,” Bass said. “But I am moving forward, I am going to run my race, and I look forward to serving with her in my second term.”

Raman has been delivering a similarly complicated message, expressing deep respect for the mayor while arguing that the city is in desperate need of change.

On the morning of Feb. 7, before filling out her paperwork at the city clerk’s office, Raman called Bass to inform her she was running.

The next day, the two women met privately at Getty House, the mayor’s mansion. Neither would say why they met or what they discussed.

At City Hall, both supporters and critics of Bass have been retracing recent events, looking for clues as to how things went wrong.

In November, while watching election returns for New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Raman told The Times that Bass was the most progressive mayor the city ever had — noting that Angelenos “vote their values.” Last month, Bass twice announced that she had Raman’s endorsement.

On Friday, Raman said she could not remember exactly when she endorsed Bass, saying she believed it came during a phone call with the mayor “probably in the fourth quarter of last year.” At the same time, she said her exasperation with the city’s leadership has been building for months.

“I have been actually frustrated by the conditions in the city for quite some time, particularly over this last year, where we are both unable to deliver basic services, like fixing streetlights and repaving streets for my constituents, but also are not moving toward a more accountable, transparent and efficient system of addressing issues like homelessness,” she said in an interview.

Gloria Martinez, center, of United Teachers Los Angeles, speaks at a rally outside City Hall featuring opponents of the effort to rewrite Measure ULA, a tax on property sales to pay for housing initiatives.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Raman pointed to Measure ULA, the voter-approved tax on property sales of $5.3 million and up, as a catalyst for her mayoral bid. Although she has been a supporter of the tax, she has also concluded that it is a major obstacle to building new housing.

Last month, Raman tried without success to put a measure on the June 2 ballot that would have scaled back the types of properties covered by the tax, in hopes of jump-starting apartment construction.

Raman also told The Times that Inside Safe, the mayor’s signature program to move unhoused people indoors, needs to be redesigned so it is “fiscally sustainable.” She said she “simply did not see any progress” from the mayor’s office on that issue.

Asked whether she betrayed Bass, Raman said her decision to run was driven by the growing problems facing the city — and the need for change.

“My most important relationship in this role is with the people of Los Angeles, not the politics of City Hall,” she said.

Bass campaign spokesperson Douglas Herman pointed out that Raman is head of the council’s housing and homelessness committee — and that she repeatedly voiced support for Bass programs that have delivered back-to-back reductions in street homelessness.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman scans a QR code to get election updates during an election night party in March 2024.

(Myung Chun/Los Angeles Times)

“While we are developing more cost effective models, it is absolutely urgent that we get people off our streets immediately,” Herman said. “Nithya Raman is acting like a typical politician and knows it because she congratulated Mayor Bass for cleaning dangerous and long-standing encampments in her district.”

Raman’s decision has sparked an outcry from an unlikely combination of Bass allies. Danny J. Bakewell, Jr., executive editor of the Los Angeles Sentinel, condemned Raman’s actions last week in an editorial that invoked the O’Jay’s 1972 hit “Back Stabbers.”

“One of life’s greatest disappointments is discovering that someone you believed was a friend is not,” wrote Bakewell, whose newspaper focuses on issues facing the city’s Black community.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file LAPD officers and opposed Raman’s reelection in 2024, offered a similar take.

“If political backstabbing were a crime, Nithya Raman would be a wanted fugitive,” the union’s board, which has endorsed Bass, said in a statement.

Zev Yaroslavsky, a former county supervisor and City Council member, does not believe that Raman’s recent history with Bass — endorsing her and later running against her — will be an issue for the electorate. In L.A. political circles, however, it will be viewed as a transgression, at least in the short term, he said.

“As a politician, you don’t have much currency. What you have is your word,” he said.

Yaroslavsky, director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, said he is certain that Raman and the other major candidates — community organizer Rae Huang, reality television star Spencer Pratt and tech entrepreneur Adam Miller — have looked at polls showing that Bass is politically weakened and vulnerable to a challenge.

“If Raman becomes mayor, nobody’s going to remember this, including the political class,” he said. “If she doesn’t, it’ll be a little more difficult for her. It’s not irreparable. But there will be a residue to this.”

On the council, Raman belongs to a four-member voting bloc, each of whom won office with support from Democratic Socialists of America. While Bass is generally considered more conservative than Raman on public safety issues, the two share many of the same policy priorities, particularly around homelessness.

In her first campaign for City Council in 2020, Raman ran on a promise to address the city’s homelessness crisis in a humanitarian way, by moving unhoused residents into temporary and permanent housing.

Bass, a former state Assembly speaker and 12-year member of Congress, took office two years later and made homelessness her signature issue, convincing the council to expand her power to respond to the crisis.

Raman backed Bass’ declaration of a homelessness emergency, which gave the mayor the power to award contracts and sign leases directly. A week later, Bass staged her first Inside Safe operation in Raman’s district, on a stretch of Cahuenga Boulevard in Hollywood.

As recently as July, Raman appeared on a Bass press release touting the city’s progress on homelessness.

Bass first announced that Raman had endorsed her on Jan. 27. Raman said she did not begin seriously contemplating a run for mayor until the following week, as the filing deadline approached.

Over a tumultuous 48-hour period, former L.A. schools Supt. Austin Beutner exited the race, while real estate developer Rick Caruso and L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath announced that they, too, would stay out.

“I realized we were potentially not even going to have a real competition, and that troubled me,” Raman said.

Esperias, the Bass supporter, said he is still processing Raman’s decision to run.

He said Bass tapped him to help Raman in 2023 after one of Raman’s opponents, deputy city attorney Ethan Weaver, cleared a key hurdle in his bid for the endorsement of the county’s Democratic Party.

Esperias, who lives in L.A.’s Vermont Square neighborhood, said he worked with Raman’s team on a plan to persuade party members to pull Weaver’s endorsement, then flip it to Raman. While Esperias and others called and texted party members, Bass sent a letter urging them to endorse Raman.

Weaver, in an interview, said he immediately felt the difference. After Bass’ letter, interest in endorsing him evaporated.

“It changed the amount of people that would take my call,” he said.

Once the election was over, Esperias said, Raman sent a text message thanking him for his help during a tough campaign.

“I put my credibility, I put my relationships on the line to help build this coalition to get that endorsement,” Esperias said.

Raman argued that the support has gone both ways.

During Bass’ first mayoral campaign, Raman held a fundraiser at her Silver Lake home and introduced Bass to key people in her district.

“I did help her in her election as well, just like she helped me,” she said.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gavin Newsom writes in his upcoming memoir about San Francisco’s highborn Getty family fitting him in Brioni suits “appropriate to meet a king” when he was 20 years old. Then he flew aboard their private “Jetty” to Spain for a royal princess’s debutante-style party.

Back home, real life wasn’t as grand.

In an annual performance for their single mom, Newsom and his sister would pretend to find problems with the fancy clothes his dad’s friends, the heirs of ruthless oil baron J. Paul Getty, sent for Christmas. Poor fit. Wrong color. Not my style. The ritual gave her an excuse to return the gifts and use the store credit on presents for her children she placed under the tree.

California’s 41st governor, a possible suitor for the White House, opens up about the duality of his upbringing in his new book. Newsom details the everyday struggle living with his mom after his parents divorced and occasional interludes into his father’s life charmed by the Gettys’ affluence, including that day when the Gettys outfitted him in designer clothes at a luxury department store.

“I walked out understanding that this was the split personality of my life,” Newsom writes in “Young Man in a Hurry.”

For years, Newsom asserted that his “one-dimensional” public image as a slick, privileged politician on a path to power paved with Getty oil money fails to tell the whole story.

“I’m not trying to be something I’m not,” Newsom said in a recent interview. “I’m not trying to talk about, you know, ‘I was born in a town called Hope with no running water.’ That’s not what this book is about. But it’s a very different portrayal than the one I think 9 out of 10 people believe.”

As he explores a 2028 presidential run and basks in the limelight as one of President Trump’s most vociferous critics, the book offers the Democratic politician a chance to write his own narrative and address the skeletons in his closet before opponents begin to exploit his past.

A book tour, which is set to begin Feb. 21 in Nashville, also gives Newsom a reason to travel the country, meet voters and promote his life story without officially entering the race. He’s expected to make additional stops in Georgia, South Carolina, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The governor describes the book as a “memoir of discovery” that sent him interviewing family members and friends and digging through troves of old documents about his lineage that his mother never spoke about and his father smoothed over. Learning about his family history, the good and the bad, Newsom said, helped him understand and accept himself. Mark Arax, an author and former Los Angeles Times journalist, was his ghostwriter.

“I’ve changed the opinion of myself,” Newsom said when asked if he believed the book would revise his glossy public image. “It kind of rocked so many parts of my life, and kind of cracked things open. And I started to understand where my anxieties come from and why I’m overcompensating in certain areas.”

Newsom writes that his interest in politics brought him and his father, William, closer. His mother, Tessa, on the other hand, didn’t share his father’s enthusiasm.

She warned him to get out while he still could, worried her only son would eschew his true self.

“My mother did not want that world for me: the shrewd marriage of tall husbands and tall wives that kept each year’s Cotillion Debutante Ball stocked with children of the same; the gritted teeth behind the social smiles; the spectator sport of who was in and who was out based on so-and-so’s dinner party guest list,” Newsom wrote.

At the heart of her concern was her belief that Newsom’s “obsessive drive” into business and politics was in response to his upbringing and an effort to solve “the riddle” of his identity from his learning disorder, dyslexia, and the two different worlds he inhabited.

“As I grew up trying to grasp which of these worlds, if either, suited me best, she had worried about the persona I was constructing to cover up what she considered a crack at my core,” Newsom writes. “If my remaking was skim plaster, she feared, it would crumble. It would not hold me into adulthood.”

Newsom’s mother was 19 years old when she married his father, then 32. He learned through writing the book that his mother hailed from a “family of brilliant and daring misfits who had carved new paths in botany and medicine and left-wing politics,” he writes.

There was also secret pain and struggles with mental health. His maternal grandfather, a World War II POW, turned to the bottle after returning home. One night he told his three young daughters to line up in front of the fireplace so he could shoot them, but stopped when his wife walked in the door and took the gun from his hand. He committed suicide years later.

Newsom’s father’s family was full of more traditional Democrats and Irish Catholic storytellers who worked in banking, homebuilding, law enforcement and law. Newsom describes his paternal grandfather as one of the “thinkers behind the throne” for former California Gov. Edmund “Pat” Brown, but his family never held public office despite his dad’s bids for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the California Legislature.

The failed campaigns left his father in financial and emotional turmoil that crippled his marriage when Newsom was a small boy. A divorce set the stage for an unusual contrasting existence for the would-be governor, offering him brief exposures to the wealth and power of the Gettys through his dad.

Newsom said he moved casually between the rich and poor neighborhoods of San Francisco as a boy.

“It was a wonder how effortlessly I glided because the two realms of my life, the characters of my mother’s world and the characters of my father’s world, did not fit together in the least,” Newsom writes.

Mayor Gavin Newsom and his dad, Judge William Newsom, have lunch at the Balboa Cafe in San Francisco.

(Christina Koci Hernandez / San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

Though William Alfred Newsom III went on to become an appellate court justice, Newsom’s father was best known for his role delivering ransom money to the kidnappers of J. Paul Getty’s grandson. He served as an adviser to the family without pay and a paid administrator of the $4 billion family trust.

The governor wrote in the book that the ties between the two families go back three generations. His father was close friends with Getty’s sons John Paul Jr. and Gordon since childhood when they became like his sixth and seventh siblings at Newsom’s grandparents’ house.

Gordon Getty in particular considered Newsom’s father his “best-best friend.” Newsom’s dad helped connect the eccentric music composer “to the outside world,” the governor wrote.

“My father had this way of creating a safe space for Gordon to open up,” Newsom writes. “He became Gordon’s whisperer, his interpreter and translator, a bridge to their friends, a bridge to Gordon’s own children.”

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and his sister, Hilary Newsom, in a promotional portrait for the Search for the Cause campaign, which raises funds for cancer research, on Nov. 21, 2025.

(Caroline Schiff/Getty Images)

His father’s friendship with Gordon Getty exposed Newsom and his younger sister, Hillary, to a world far beyond their family’s own means. Gordon’s wife, Ann, and Newsom’s father organized elaborate adventures for the Gettys’ four sons and the Newsom children.

Newsom describes fishing on the Rogue River and riding in a helicopter while studying polar bears on the shores of the Hudson Bay in Canada. He recalled donning tuxedos and carrying toy guns pretending to be James Bond on a European yacht vacation and soaring over the Serengeti in a hot air balloon during an East African safari.

Throughout his travels, Newsom often blended in with the Gettys’ brown-haired sons. He wrote that the actor Jack Nicholson once mistakenly called him one of the “Getty boys” at a party in a 16th-century palazzo in Venice where guests arrived via gondola. Newsom didn’t correct him.

“Had I shared this encounter with my mother, she likely would have asked me if deception was something I practiced whenever I hobnobbed with the Gettys,” Newsom said in the book. “Fact is, I was always aware of the line that separated us from the Gettys. Not because they went out of their way to make us aware of it but because we, as good Newsoms, paid constant mind to the distinction.”

Newsom wrote that his mother seemed to begrudge the excursions when her children returned home. She raised them in a much more ordinary existence. Newsom describes his father’s presence as “episodic.”

“For a day or two, she’d give us the silent treatment, and then we’d all fall back into the form of a life trying to make ends meet,” he wrote. “After enough vacations came and went, a cone of silence took hold.”

Newsom’s mother worked as an assistant retail buyer, a bookkeeper, a waitress at a Mexican restaurant, a development director for a nonprofit and a real estate agent — holding as many as three jobs at once — to provide for her children. His mother’s sister and brother-in-law helped care for them when they could, but he likened himself to a latchkey kid because of the amount of time he and his sister spent alone.

They moved five times in 10 years in search of a “better house in a better neighborhood” with good schools, taking the family from San Francisco to the Marin County suburbs. Though his mother owned a home, she often rented out rooms to bring in extra money.

Tired of his mother complaining about finances and his father not coming through, Newsom wrote that he took on a paper route.

In the book, Newsom describes his struggles with dyslexia and how the learning disorder undercut his self-esteem when he was an emotionally vulnerable child.

Eager to make himself something more than an awkward kid with sweaty palms and a bowl haircut who couldn’t read, Newsom mimicked Remington Steele, the suave character on the popular 1980s detective show. He chugged down glassfuls of raw eggs like Sylvester Stallone in “Rocky” and ran across town and back like a prizefighter in training.

He found confidence in high school sports, but his struggle to find himself continued into young adulthood. Newsom wrote that he watched tapes of motivational guru Tony Robbins and heeded his advice to remake yourself in the image of someone you admire. For Newsom, that became Robbins himself.

“Find a person who embodies all of the outward traits of personality, bearing, charisma, language, and power lacking in yourself,” Newsom described the philosophy in the book. “Study that person. Copy that person. The borrowed traits may fit awkwardly at first, but don’t fret. You’ll be surprised by how fast the pose becomes you, and you the pose.”

His father scoffed at the self-help gurus and nurtured his interest in business.

More than a half-dozen friends and family members, including Gordon Getty, invested equal shares to help him launch a wine shop in San Francisco. Newsom named the business, which expanded to include restaurants, hotels and wineries, “PlumpJack,” the nickname of Shakespeare’s fictional character Sir John Falstaff and the title of Gordon Getty’s opera.

“Gordon’s really inspired me to be bolder and more audacious. He’s inspired me to be more authentic,” Newsom said. “The risks I take in business … just trying to march to the beat of a different drummer and to be a little bolder. That’s my politics. But I also think he played a huge role in that, in terms of shaping me in that respect as well.”

Newsom described Gordon and Ann Getty as like family. The Gettys also became the biggest investors in his wineries and among his largest political donors.

In an interview, Newsom said there are many days when he feels his mother “absolutely” was right to worry about the facade of politics and the mold her son stuffed himself into.

Gavin Newsom heads for his home neighborhood on Nov. 3, 2003, to cast hisvote for San Francisco mayor.

(Mike Kepka / San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

He described the day the recall against him qualified for the ballot amid the COVID-19 pandemic as humbling and humiliating, though it later failed by a wide margin. Still today, he said, there’s a voice in his head constantly questioning why he’s in politics, what he’s exposing his wife and children to and doing with his life.

By choosing a career as an elected official despite his mother’s warnings, Newsom ultimately picked his father’s world and accomplished his father’s dream of taking office. But he said the book taught him that so much of his own more gutsy positions, such as his early support for gay marriage, and his hustle were from his mother.

Newsom said he’s accepted that he can’t control which version of himself people choose to see. Writing the book felt cathartic, he said, and left him more comfortable taking off his mask.

“It allowed me to understand better my motivations, my purpose, my meaning, my mission… who my mom and dad were and who I am as a consequence of them and what truly motivates me,” Newsom said. “There’s a freedom. There’s a real freedom. And it’s nice. It’s just so much nicer than the plaster of the past.”