Biden

Democrats, despite their hypersensitive, bleeding-heart reputation, can be harsh. Ruthless, even.

When it comes to picking their presidential nominee, it’s often one and done. Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry were embraced and then, after leading their party to disappointing defeat, cast off like so many wads of wet tissue.

Compare that with Republicans, who not only believe in second chances but, more often than not, seem to prefer their presidential candidates recycled. Over the last half century, all but a few of the GOP’s nominees have had at least one failed White House bid on their resume.

The roster of retreads includes the current occupant of the Oval Office, who is only the second president in U.S. history to regain the perch after losing it four years prior.

Why the difference? It would take a psychologist or geneticist to determine if there’s something in the minds or molecular makeup of party faithful, which could explain their varied treatment of those humbled and vanquished.

Regardless, it suggests the blowback facing Kamala Harris and the campaign diary she published last week is happening right on cue.

And it doesn’t portend well for another try at the White House in 2028, should the former vice president and U.S. senator from California pursue that path.

The criticism has come in assorted flavors.

Joe Biden loyalists — many of whom were never great fans of Harris — have bristled at her relatively mild criticisms of the obviously aged and physically declining president. (She leaves it to her husband, former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, to vent about the “impossible, s— jobs” Harris was given and, in spite of that, the failure of the president and first lady to defend Harris during her low points.)

The notable lack of self-blame has rankled other Democrats. Aside from some couldas and shouldas, Harris largely ascribes her defeat to insufficient time to make her case to voters — just 107 days, the title of her book — which hardly sits well with those who feel Harris squandered the time she did have.

More generally, some Democrats fault the former vice president for resurfacing, period, rather than slinking off and disappearing forever into some deep, dark hole. It’s a familiar gripe each time the party struggles to move past a presidential defeat; Hillary Clinton faced a similar backlash when she published her inside account after losing to Donald Trump in 2016.

That critique assumes great masses of voters devour campaign memoirs with the same voracious appetite as those who surrender their Sundays to the Beltway chat shows, or mainline political news like a continuous IV drip.

They do not.

Let the record show Democrats won the White House in 2020 even though Clinton bobbed back up in 2017 and, for a short while, thwarted the party’s fervent desire to “turn the page.”

But there are those avid consumers of campaigns and elections, and for the political fiends among us Harris offers plenty of fizz, much of it involving her party peers and prospective 2028 rivals.

Pete Buttigieg, the meteoric star of the 2020 campaign, was her heartfelt choice for vice president, but Harris said she feared the combination of a Black woman and gay running mate would exceed the load-bearing capacity of the electorate. (News to me, Buttigieg said after Harris revealed her thinking, and an underestimation of the American people.)

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, the runner-up to Harris’ ultimate vice presidential pick, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, comes across as unseemly salivating and greedily lusting after the job. (He fired back by suggesting Harris has some splainin’ to do about what she knew of Biden’s infirmities and when she knew it.)

Harris implies Govs. JB Pritzker and Gretchen Whitmer of Illinois and Michigan, respectively, were insufficiently gung-ho after Biden stepped aside and she became the Democratic nominee-in-waiting.

But for California readers, the most toothsome morsel involves Harris’ longtime frenemy, Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The two, who rose to political power in the early 2000s on parallel tracks in San Francisco, have long had a complicated relationship, mixing mutual aid with jealousy and jostling.

In her book, Harris recounts the hours after Biden’s sudden withdrawal, when she began telephoning top Democrats around the country to lock in their support. In contrast to the enthusiasm many displayed, Newsom responded tersely with a text message: “Hiking. Will call back.”

He never did, Harris noted, pointedly, though Newsom did issue a full-throated endorsement within hours, which the former vice president failed to mention.

It’s small-bore stuff. But the fact Harris chose to include that anecdote speaks to the tetchiness underlying the warmth and fuzziness that California’s two most prominent Democrats put on public display.

Will the two face off in 2028?

Riding the promotional circuit, Harris has repeatedly sidestepped the inevitable questions about another presidential bid.

“That’s not my focus right now,” she told Rachel Maddow, in a standard-issue non-denial denial. For his part, Newsom is obviously running, though he won’t say so.

There would be something operatic, or at least soap-operatic, about the two longtime competitors openly vying for the country’s ultimate political prize — though it’s hard to see Democrats, with their persistent hunger for novelty, turning to Harris or her left-coast political doppelganger as their savior.

Meantime, the two are back on parallel tracks, though seemingly headed in opposite directions.

While Newsom is looking to build Democratic bridges, Harris is burning hers down.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. remains mired in a deadly pandemic, the economy is suffering from a bout of inflation and states face challenges from climate to transportation, but with only days left in their close-fought race, the hottest issue dividing Virginia’s candidates for governor this week was the late novelist Toni Morrison.

The Republican candidate, Glenn Youngkin, who has steadily gained ground over the past two months, aired an ad featuring Laura Murphy, a parent who had campaigned years ago against the use of Morrison’s widely acclaimed, Pulitzer Prize-winning novel “Beloved” in her son’s high school Advanced Placement English class.

In 2016 and again in 2017, then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, vetoed a bill aimed at “Beloved” that Murphy helped lobby through the state legislature. It would have required K-12 teachers to give parents advance notice of books with “sexually explicit content” and allow them to take their children out of class. “Beloved,” based on a true story of a woman who killed her child to save her from slavery, includes several graphic descriptions of sexual violence.

Youngkin accused the former governor, now seeking to return to the office, of wanting to “silence parents because he doesn’t believe they should have a say in their child’s education.”

McAuliffe fired back that Youngkin was “focused on banning award-winning books from our schools and silencing the voices of Black authors” such as Morrison. The Republican, he said, was engaged in “Trumpian dog whistles.”

For both candidates, the issue provided a chance to rally key audiences — conservative suburban parents on the one side, Black voters on the other — as the state hurtles toward an election Tuesday that, if polls are correct, could be among its closest in years.

President Biden and former President Trump both have a lot riding on the outcome.

A close race on Democratic turf

The Virginia election is everything that California’s recall turned out not to be — a test of whether Democrats can hold the allegiance of suburban voters stressed by nearly two years of COVID-19 restrictions and of whether Republicans can win a blue state despite Trump’s unpopularity.

Last year, Biden carried Virginia by 10 points, and Democrats currently control all the statewide elected offices. The party took control of both houses of the state legislature over the last four years, and Republicans haven’t won the governorship since 2009.

In short, while Virginia is not as deeply blue as California or New York, it’s a state Democrats recently have been able to count on.

Right now, they can’t.

Biden’s popularity in the state has tumbled, just as it has nationwide since this summer when the Delta variant of the coronavirus upended his optimistic forecasts about COVID-19. A Monmouth University poll in mid-October found Virginia voters disapproving of Biden’s job performance, 52% to 43%, sharply down from an August poll.

The president’s slumping polls are a big problem for McAuliffe, creating “headwinds” for him, as the candidate told supporters last month.

He faces several other difficulties: With Democrats having run the state for the last eight years, they’re naturally the target of voters seeking a change. And McAuliffe, as a former governor trying to make a comeback — Virginia doesn’t allow governors to run for consecutive terms — wouldn’t be a likely change candidate in any case. As a 64-year-old white, male, longtime political figure, he’s not the type to inspire huge enthusiasm among young voters or progressives.

Youngkin, a first-time candidate, has skillfully positioned himself. He’s seized on discontent over schools to take control of an issue on which Democrats have long had an advantage. The Monmouth poll showed that education had risen on the list of top voter concerns and that Youngkin had pulled even with McAuliffe as the candidate voters thought could best handle the issue.

Overall, Youngkin clearly has momentum on his side. The Monmouth poll was one of several recently that found the two candidates dead even — a big accomplishment for the Republican, who this summer trailed by around seven points. A Fox News poll released Thursday evening showed Youngkin moving into the lead among likely voters.

Democrats have dominated early voting, which the state has greatly expanded, but both parties expect Republicans to show up in large numbers to vote in person on Tuesday.

Youngkin, the former CEO of Carlyle Group, a big private equity firm, has poured at least $20 million of his own money into the race, allowing him to keep pace with McAuliffe, a prolific fundraiser. He’s used that money for a barrage of television ads that depict him in classrooms, pledging to raise teacher pay — stealing a page from the Democratic playbook.

At the same time, he has closely identified himself with parents angry over unresponsive school bureaucracies — a sentiment that has boiled over in many parts of the country.

Youngkin has used education issues to mobilize conservatives, pledging to ban teaching of critical race theory in Virginia. It’s not clear that the academic theory, which analyzes the outcomes of systemic racism, is taught anywhere in the state’s K-12 schools, but the idea that it might be has become a rallying cry on the right. That, plus Trump’s endorsement, has solidified his Republican support.

Education also has given him an entrée to less ideological voters in the state’s large suburban regions. In recent elections, those voters increasingly have turned against the GOP, but many are deeply frustrated over the last year and a half of COVID-related school disruptions.

In the California recall election, Republicans had hoped that tapping into parental anger could give them the boost they needed to defeat Gov. Gavin Newsom. That failed, in large part because the top Republican candidate, Larry Elder, lacked credibility with swing voters.

Youngkin has avoided Elder’s habit of creating controversies. Instead, it was McAuliffe who inadvertently helped his opponent with ill-chosen words. During a candidate debate in September, as he explained why he had vetoed the so-called “Beloved” bill, McAuliffe said “I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decisions.”

Then, he added: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

Youngkin has heavily featured that line in his ads.

McAuliffe’s campaign eventually responded with an ad in which the former governor expressed respect for parents, but the damage was done.

On top of the reasons that may cause some swing voters to switch this year, McAuliffe also faces a turnout problem, according to Democratic strategists close to his campaign: After the drama of last year, many Democratic voters are exhausted with politics. Republicans, by contrast, are highly motivated to avenge their recent losses.

To counter apathy, McAuliffe has depended heavily on Democrats’ chief motivator — Trump.

In speeches and advertisements, he constantly links his opponent with the unpopular former president.

So do his surrogates, including Biden.

“I ran against Donald Trump. And Terry is running against an acolyte of Donald Trump,” Biden said Tuesday during a campaign rally with McAuliffe in northern Virginia.

Former President Obama, Georgia’s Stacey Abrams and other leading Democrats who have come into the state to campaign have stressed the same point.

Trump, in his usual way, has not been able to resist the urge to get involved. On Wednesday, his spokesperson put out a statement saying that Trump “and his MAGA movement will be delivering a major victory to Trump-endorsed businessman Glenn Youngkin.”

McAuliffe’s campaign went into overdrive to ensure the statement was widely seen.

With the contest appearing so close — tight enough that the winner might not be known until final ballots are counted late next week — there’s one forecast that’s clear: Whichever candidate wins probably can thank Donald Trump.

A ‘framework’ if not a bill

Biden, before heading to Europe, where he will participate in the G20 economic summit and an international conference on climate change, traveled to Capitol Hill on Thursday to announce that he and party leaders had negotiated the “framework” of a bill to cover his major budget priorities.

As Jennifer Haberkorn and Nolan McCaskill reported, the measure, the subject of negotiations for months, would spend roughly $1.75 trillion over the next 10 years on a host of Democratic priorities, including universal preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds, subsidies for childcare and continuation of the expanded child tax credit.

On healthcare, the bill would expand subsidies under the Affordable Care Act and close the hole in Obamacare that excludes low-income people in the dozen states, mostly in the South, that have refused to expand Medicaid. Both expansions would last through 2025. Medicare would grow to include hearing coverage.

The bill would also include about $500 billion to combat climate change.

McCaskill prepared this summary of what’s in the framework.

Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hope that agreement on the framework will allow the House to pass the separate $1 trillion infrastructure bill that cleared the Senate in early August. But a large number of progressive House Democrats are continuing to hold out. They want more concrete assurances that Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who have been the main impediments to Biden’s budget plan in the Senate, will vote for the framework before they’ll vote to approve the infrastructure bill, which the two more-conservative senators support.

Democratic leaders hope to bring both bills to a vote as early as next week.

Several Democratic priorities fell out of the bill as the White House negotiated with Manchin and Sinema to reduce its cost. As Haberkorn reported, a key element that dropped out was a program for paid family leave. Also gone is a plan to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

As Chris Megerian wrote, Biden has been pressing to get agreement on his domestic priorities before heading overseas for the summit meetings.

Friday morning, Biden began his European events with a private meeting with Pope Francis. As Megerian wrote, the meeting comes at a time when some conservative U.S. bishops have talked of denying Biden communion because of his support for abortion rights. The pope’s decision to host Biden “sends a message to the American bishops that denying communion is not something that he approves of,” said John K. White, professor of politics at the Catholic University of America in Washington.

Oil industry on the hot seat

In advance of the climate summit, a House committee has been grilling oil industry leaders about their decades-long record of downplaying the role that fossil fuels play in causing global warming. As Anna Phillips and Erin Logan reported, the hearing marked the first time that members of Congress have directly questioned oil and gas executives under oath about reported efforts to mislead the public about climate change.

The latest from California

Gov. Newsom and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced $5 billion in loans to help modernize California’s seaports. The money probably won’t come in time to help clear out current snarls that have backlogged shipments, but it should help prevent future logistical nightmares, Megerian and Russ Mitchell reported.

In Sacramento, lawmakers called for changes following the oil spill off the coast of Orange County, but, as Phil Willon reported, they largely conceded that the state has little ability to ban offshore drilling, most of which occurs in federal waters.

The field of candidates for mayor of Los Angeles got another entry this week as Ramit Varma, an entrepreneur from Encino, announced his candidacy. As Dakota Smith reported, another businessman waits in the wings. Rick Caruso, the prominent developer, has been discussing a race with strategists, including Bearstar Strategies, the firm whose partners Ace Smith and Sean Clegg devised campaigns for former Gov. Jerry Brown and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Sign up for our California Politics newsletter to get the best of The Times’ state politics reporting.

WASHINGTON — In an interview with Rachel Maddow this week promoting her new memoir, Kamala Harris was asked whether her book tour is part of a strategy to run again for the presidency in 2028.

“That’s not my focus at all,” Harris replied, dismissive of the idea. “It really isn’t.”

Democratic strategists agree that her book, “107 Days,” and the tour that has followed suggests Harris lacks a serious plan for a future in elected politics, generating more questions than clarity on her path forward and future role in public life.

The book has reopened a fractious intraparty debate over who is to blame for last year’s loss to President Trump. Polls show Harris’ standing in the field of 2028 Democratic presidential contenders as relatively weak for a figure who led the party less than a year ago. And even in California, her home state, Democrats prefer another potential candidate, Gov. Gavin Newsom, over her for the next contest.

A historically weak showing

Harris argues in her book she had too little time to mount a competitive campaign after President Biden announced he would drop out of the race that July, handing the party mantle to her with little notice.

She called it “reckless” to allow Biden to make the decision to run for reelection on his own, and on tour, has acknowledged responsibility for not speaking up more on the matter herself. But she has not stated explicitly that it was a mistake for him to enter the race in the first place.

Harris would ultimately post the worst electoral college showing for a Democrat since Michael Dukakis in 1988.

“I realize that I have and had a certain responsibility that I should have followed through on,” she told Maddow. “When I talk about the recklessness, as much as anything, I’m talking about myself.”

Potential 2028 candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, many of whom already are making visits to battleground states, have seized the moment of her tour to criticize her handling of the 2024 race. Harris wrote in the book that it was her duty as Biden’s vice president to remain loyal to him, despite acknowledging that, at 81, Biden “got tired” on the job.

“She’s going to have to answer to how she was in the room and yet never said anything publicly,” Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro told a SiriusXM podcast last week.

The book touches on Shapiro as well as Pete Buttigieg, Biden’s former Transportation secretary and another possible contender in 2028, as figures she considered as potential running mates. But airing her assessments of active political aspirants has only drawn more scrutiny. On “Good Morning America” this week, asked whether her book had hurt her relationships with fellow Democrats, Harris replied, “that’s not my intention, and I hope not.”

“Harris, like other well-known Democrats, naturally wants to be a part of the national conversation — about 2024, 2026 and 2028. What happened, what should the party do, and who should lead it forward?” said Andrew Sinclair, an assistant professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. “These are all questions Democrats are actively debating now, and even if she decides not to run in the future, Harris has a high enough profile in the party to have a role in answering those questions.”

Passing on a potential run for governor of California, Harris told Stephen Colbert that she had decided America’s system of elected offices was no longer the venue for her to enact change. “I think it’s broken,” she said.

But her memoir and book tour have shed little light on what alternatives she might have in mind to remain a relevant figure in public life — or what vision she has for the Democratic Party going forward.

She concludes the book with a handful of platitudes on the need to invest in Gen Z.

“We need to come up with our own blueprint that sets out our alternative vision for our country,” she wrote.

Newsom better positioned

High-quality polls show Harris remains a leading choice for Democrats in the next campaign cycle, tied or slightly edged out by Newsom. But under the hood, data indicate that less than 20% of Democrats view her as an ideal party leader entering the coming race.

Newsom’s polling trajectory, on the other hand, has begun moving in the opposite direction.

A series of polls published late last month found support for the California governor had surged over the summer, as Newsom embraced high-profile battles with Trump over ICE raids in Los Angeles, national gerrymandering efforts and the cultural memesphere.

And after Trump took substantial time in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly this week to deride climate change as a “hoax,” Newsom is in New York, as well, to attend Climate Week, highlighting California initiatives in interviews with Colbert and the New York Times.

His combative appearances, looking forward to 2028 and beyond, offer a contrast with a book tour by Harris that has thus far focused on the past.

“Governor Newsom has deftly positioned himself as the national Democrat most consistently ready to stand up to the president, adopting the tools — his podcast — and tactics — in-your-face-social media — that proved so effective for the GOP ticket last time,” said Bruce Mehlman, a bipartisan campaign consultant in Washington.

But the pace of political change in Trump’s America makes current polling unreliable, Sinclair said.

“The 2028 election is far away at a time when the political situation in the United States is changing rapidly,” he said, adding: “At best, Democratic leaders today can put themselves in a position to be influential, but I do not think anyone knows enough about what is going to happen next to have much more of a plan than that.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Family of former DACA recipient who died in ICE custody says officials ignored his pleas for help
The deep dive: RFK Jr. wants an answer to rising autism rates. Scientists say he’s ignoring some obvious ones
The L.A. Times Special: How viral rumors worsened the fallout from an ICE raid at Santa Fe Springs Swap Meet

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — John Burton was the unique sort of political leader we need much more of in today’s hate-spewing politics.

First, he dedicated his life to fighting for a cause that earned him only personal satisfaction and absolutely no political gain: the powerless poor, particularly the aged, blind and disabled.

These aren’t folks with any money to donate to political coffers. They’re not members of unions harboring large piles of campaign cash. They don’t volunteer to walk precincts before elections. Many can barely walk. They’re not organized. More likely they live lonely lives. And they never heard of John Burton.

Burton — and only Burton — had these peoples’ backs in Sacramento’s halls of power for many years. And no one has taken his place.

Second, this bleeding-heart San Francisco liberal instinctively liked and befriended many political opposites with whom he developed working relationships to achieve his and their goals. He’d loudly denounce their conservative positions on issues but not them personally — in contrast to today’s ugly, click-driven, opportunistic American politics.

Right-wingers? “I never held that against anybody,” Burton writes in his recently released autobiography, “I Yell Because I Care: The Passion and Politics of John Burton, California’s Liberal Warrior.”

“Like, you never know when you might need a right-winger for something. And when you do, it’s best to give them something in return. And it’s even better when what they want is something you don’t really care about. Sometimes, that’s the way s— gets done in politics.”

When it gets done, which is almost never these days in Congress. Things might get done in Sacramento — for good or bad — because Democrats wield ironclad control over all branches of government, unlike when Burton was a legislator during decades that required bipartisan compromise.

Burton was infamously foul-mouthed and often rude. But colleagues, staffers, lobbyists and reporters rolled their eyes and adjusted. OK, so you couldn’t always quote his exact words in a family newspaper or on TV.

At heart, Burton was a softie and extrovert who genuinely liked people of all political persuasions. And they liked him because he was a straight shooter whose word was golden — the No. 1 asset for most anyone in politics.

Softie? Longtime Burton spokesman David Seback recalls this incident when the lawmaker was Senate president pro tem, the No. 2 most powerful office in the Capitol:

“There was a guy who was pretty severely disabled who would go with difficulty using crutches from office to office delivering copies of these multi-page conspiracy theory laden packets he put together to all 120 legislators. There were some typewritten parts, some handwritten, some xeroxed photos.

“One day John stopped him and said, ‘From now on, you deliver one copy to my office.’ After that, all the legislators got a copy of these packets stamped, ‘Compliments of John Burton.’”

Most Capitol denizens — if they noticed him at all — probably dismissed this packet-carting conspiracy theorist on crutches as a sad kook. But he’s the type who was Burton’s purpose in life to help.

Burton, 92, died Sept. 7 at a hospice facility in San Francisco.

The Times ran an excellent Page 1 obituary on Burton written by former Times staffer Dan Morain. It covered the bases well: A pro-labor lawmaker instrumental in shaping California politics over six decades on topics as varied as welfare, foster care, mental health, auto emissions and guns.

Burton was integral to a powerful political organization founded by his older brother, U.S. Rep. Phil Burton, that included two of John’s closest pals: future San Francisco mayors George Moscone and Willie Brown. The organization kick-started the political careers of future U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

John Burton left Congress in 1982 to fight cocaine addiction and remained clean and sober the rest of his life. He was reelected to the Legislature in 1988, ultimately chosen as Senate leader and termed out in 2004. Then he became state Democratic Party chairman for the second time.

When Burton died, I was recovering from an illness and missed out writing about him. That bothered me. So I’m doing it now.

I got to know Burton when he was first elected to the Assembly with Willie Brown in 1964. Both were fast learners about how the Capitol worked and ultimately each was elected leader of his house.

“Sometimes all it takes to succeed in politics is to make sure somebody has a nice view of Capitol Park and an extra secretary,” Burton writes in his autobiography of rounding up enough of Senate votes to become leader.

In the entertaining book, co-written with journalist Andy Furillo, Burton writes extensively about “the neediest of the needy…. My district included a ton of single-room occupancy hotels south of Market Street that were filled with people who cooked off hot plates and had to go down the hall to the bathroom. They survived on their federal and state assistance checks.”

Governors and legislative leaders of both parties routinely ripped off these poor folks’ federal aid increases to help balance the state budget in tough economic times. Or they’d try to until Burton blocked them.

“For some people,” Burton once told me, “it can be the difference between tuna fish and cat food for lunch.”

Without calling up local TV — as most politicians would — Burton bought blankets and drove around San Francisco by himself handing them out to the homeless.

“We were brought up to be that way,” Burton told me. “My old man [a doctor], he’d do house calls in the Fillmore, a Black area, at 2 in the morning. And if the family looked like it didn’t have money, he’d say, ‘Forget it. Go buy the kid a pair of shoes.’”

Thanks to Burton, the state was forced into buying lots of tuna fish lunches for the neediest of the needy.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘We’re not North Korea.’ Newsom signs bills to limit immigration raids at schools and unmask federal agents
The TK: Here’s why the redistricting fight is raging. And why it may be moot
The L.A. Times Special: Don’t hold your breath, but as raids stifle economy, Trump proves case for immigration reform

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

Without a doubt, it is important to capture the reflections of a vice president who found herself in an unprecedented situation after the president was pressured to withdraw from the 2024 election. And “107 Days,” a taut, often eye-opening account — written with the help of Geraldine Brooks — takes you inside the rooms where it happened, as well as what led up to Kamala Harris’ remarkable run.

For one, apparently MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell first gave Harris the idea she should seek the presidency in 2020. Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, were having breakfast at a restaurant near their Brentwood home when O’Donnell “wandered up to our table to talk about the dire consequences of a second Trump term.” Harris, then in her first term as a U.S. senator, recounts that O’Donnell bluntly suggested: “‘You should run for president.’ I honestly had not thought about it until that moment,” she writes in “107 Days.”

Later, Harris also reveals that Tim Walz was not her first choice for running mate: Pete Buttigieg was, though she ultimately concluded the country wasn’t ready for a gay man in the role.

“We were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man,” she writes. She assumes Buttigieg felt similarly, but they never discussed it.

We do not glean much more than we already knew or assumed about President Biden’s life-changing 2024 phone call that set Harris on this path. Pleas for Biden to step aside had been building following his disastrous debate performance less than five months before the election, but by that time Harris had given up on the idea that he would withdraw from the race. But on Sunday, July 21, Harris had just finished making pancakes for her grandnieces at the vice president’s residence and was settling in to watch a cooking show with them when “No Caller ID” came up on her secure phone.

“I need to talk to you,” Biden rasps, then battling COVID-19. Without fanfare, he told her: “I’ve decided I’m dropping out.” “Are you sure?” Harris replies, to which Biden responds: “I’m sure. I’m going to announce in a few minutes.” In italics, we are made privy to what Harris is thinking during their brief phone call: “Really?” Give me a bit more time. The whole world is about to change. I’m here in sweatpants.”

If we wanted in on the powerful feelings that must have been swirling within each of them during such an exchange, or a nod to the momentousness of the moment — no dice. The conversation shifted to the timing of Biden’s endorsement of Harris, which Biden’s staff wanted to delay and which she wanted immediately. Politics, not sentiment, reigned.

The Atlantic book excerpt published earlier this month, it turns out, accurately represents the overall tone of “107 Days.” A thread running throughout is one of bitterness toward Biden’s inner circle, whom Harris felt had been poisoning the well since she first took office: “The public statements, the whispering campaigns, and the speculation had done a world of damage,” she recounts, and perhaps laid the groundwork for her defeat. While she had a warm relationship with the president himself, Harris believes she was never trusted by the first lady or the president’s closest advisors, nor did they throw their full weight behind her as the Democratic nominee.

At the same time, she never doubted that she was the right person for the job. She writes, “I knew I was the candidate in the strongest position to win. … The most qualified and ready. The highest name recognition.” She also calculates that the president and his team thought she was the least bad option to replace him because “I was the only person who would preserve his legacy.” “At this point,” she adds, “anyone else was bound to throw him — and all the good he had achieved — right under the bus.”

For those who are cynical about politics, “107 Days” will not alter your view. After Biden announces his withdrawal, First Lady Jill Biden welcomes Second Gentleman Emhoff into the fray, advising: “Be careful what you wish for. You’re about to see how horrible the world is.” Her senior adviser David Plouffe encourages Harris to distance herself from the president on the campaign trail, because “People hate Joe Biden.” Again and again, Harris provides examples of being left out of the loop or not robustly supported by his inner circle. She writes that her feelings for the president “were grounded in warmth and loyalty” but had become “more complicated over time.” She claims never to have doubted Biden’s competence, even while she worried about how he appeared to the public.

“On his worst day,” she writes, “he was more deeply knowledgeable, more capable of exercising judgment, and far more compassionate than Donald Trump at his best.” Still, his decision about seeking a second term shouldn’t “have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition,” she concludes in an observation that grabbed headlines upon its publication in the Atlantic excerpt.

The exhilaration that Harris’ campaign frequently exuded in those early rallies is summarized here, but those accounts don’t capture the joy. Some of the details she chooses to highlight tamp down the excitement. For example, at their first rally together after picking Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate, Walz, Harris and their families greet an audience of 10,000 people in Philadelphia. Though Harris writes, “We rode the high of the crowd that night,” she also notes, “When Tim clasped my hand to thrust it high in an enthusiastic victory gesture, he was so tall that the entire front of my jacket rose up.” She makes “a mental note to tell him: From now on, when we do that, you gotta bend your elbow.”

The Kamala Harris I saw on the campaign trail and enthusiastically voted for is often in evidence on the page. She is smart, savvy, funny and tough. As in many of her stump speeches and media interviews, she tends to recite her accomplishments as if reading from a resume, which sometimes reads as defensive. But she is also indefatigable: She believes that she must win to save democracy, yet she seems to shoulder that formidable burden without breaking a sweat.

“107 Days” does an excellent job of conveying the difficulty of seeking — and occupying — high office, and suggests that if she’d won, Harris’ resilience and ambition would have served her well as the leader of the free world. Many of her insights are astute, though occasionally tinged with rancor. She does accept responsibility for certain missteps, such as when she was asked on “The View” if she would have done anything differently than Biden had she been in charge. She reflects that her response — “There is nothing that comes to mind” — landed as if she’d “pulled the pin on a hand grenade.” But she doesn’t attribute her eventual loss to that or any other miscalculation: She simply needed more time to make her case.

I craved a soaring moment, a rallying cry. I didn’t find hope or inspiration within these pages — the book felt more like an obligatory postmortem with an already established conclusion. If an aim of this memoir was to rally the troops for a Harris run in 2028, “107 Days” falls short of lighting a fire. The brilliant, charismatic woman who came close to breaking the ultimate glass ceiling has given us an essential portrait of an unforgettable turning point in her journey, but “107 Days” is mainly absent the perspective and blueprint for going forward that so many of us hunger for. A few years out, that wisdom may come.

Haber is a writer, editor and publishing strategist. She was director of Oprah’s Book Club and books editor for O, the Oprah Magazine.

WASHINGTON — Of all the investigations underway by the FBI, the case of Charlie Kirk’s killing is one that President Trump’s allies expect the bureau to get right. Yet its director, Kash Patel, has struggled out of the gate.

A series of missteps

He posted misleading updates of the manhunt for a suspect on social media, blaming “the heat of the moment” in testimony before a Senate panel on Tuesday. He failed to coordinate his messaging internally with Justice Department leadership. Instead of returning to headquarters, Patel dined at an exclusive restaurant in New York as the search unfolded. And after a suspect was apprehended, Patel joined Fox News to share unprecedented details.

It was a series of missteps viewed in law enforcement circles as rookie errors, reflective of a director in over his head.

Trump has publicly stood by Patel in recent days. But leading voices in the MAGA movement have wondered aloud whether it is time for Patel to be removed, and top officials at the White House and Justice Department are reportedly questioning his future at the bureau. The president has also installed another loyalist in a top deputy position at FBI headquarters, raising questions over his plans.

Kash Patel discusses the hunt for Charlie Kirk’s killer at a news conference Friday in Orem, Utah, joined by Utah Department of Public Safety Commissioner Beau Mason, left, and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox.

(Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

The renewed spotlight on Patel comes amid suspicion in right-wing circles the director is suppressing the release of files from the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, a notorious sex offender, at Trump’s direction. And last week, former bureau officials filed a lawsuit against the administration accusing the White House of exerting extraordinary political influence over the FBI, issuing loyalty tests for agents to determine their support for Trump.

On Saturday, Trump told Fox News that he was “very proud of the FBI,” praising the agency for ultimately catching the suspected killer. “Kash — and everyone else — they have done a great job,” he added.

“In normal times, any run-of-the-mill president of either party would certainly have serious concerns with keeping Patel around,” said Douglas M. Charles, a professor and FBI historian at Penn State Greater Allegheny, characterizing Patel as historically unqualified for the role. “Of course, we are not living in normal political times.”

Patel’s job sustainability, Charles said, “rests not on whether he is competent, but exclusively on whether President Trump is satisfied with him.”

“Patel is not acting as an independent FBI director,” Charles added, “the standard we have historically had since 1973.”

Jeopardizing the Kirk case?

Justice Department officials reacted with alarm after Patel shared the content of text messages from the suspect in Kirk’s shooting, revelations that got out front of official court filings.

“Why are we reluctant to share the details of the investigation itself, and comment on the case?” Jeff Gray, the Utah County attorney, said Tuesday, outlining state charges against the murder suspect. “Because I want to ensure a fair and impartial trial.”

“I can’t talk about details at all,” said Pam Bondi, the U.S. attorney general, asked for insight into the case in a Fox News interview on Monday.

The episode drew harsh rebuke from Democrats on Capitol Hill this week, where Patel was scheduled for hearings with the House and Senate judiciary committees. “Could I have been more careful in my verbiage?” he mused, before facing a slew of questions from lawmakers.

But Patel fiercely defended himself, repeatedly citing his experience as a prosecutor in the national security division of the Justice Department, and later at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and at the Defense Department.

“I’m not going anywhere,” Patel told the Senate. “If you want to criticize my 16 years of service, please bring it on.”

Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, a professor emeritus and FBI historian at the University of Edinburgh, said that precedent exists of public officials undermining the prosecution of high-profile cases, sometimes with devastating consequences. “The Patel remarks and actions may well prejudice the trial of Tyler Robinson,” he said, referencing Kirk’s murder suspect.

On Capitol Hill, Patel said his social posts and media appearances were in service of transparency with the American people. But the charges, trial, and evidence in the case are all public, said Norm Eisen, co-founder of the States United Democracy Center and counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment trial.

“Patel’s appointment as FBI director raised red flags from the start, mainly because of his lack of relevant experience and his partisan background. What we’ve seen in recent days has only reinforced those concerns,” Eisen said.

“The Utah County attorney leading the prosecution knew better than to comment on Patel’s speculative claims, correctly pointing out that it was necessary to preserve an impartial jury,” he added. “Making political speeches about the case undermines the integrity of the process and jeopardizes the prosecution.”

Political litmus tests

In a heated exchange with Patel this week, Sen. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, asked the director whether anyone from the bureau had been terminated or disciplined “in whole or in part” for being assigned to work on investigations of Trump in recent years. Trump was ultimately charged with federal crimes over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and his handling of highly classified documents.

“Anyone that was terminated at the FBI was done so for failing to meet their standards, uphold their constitutional oath, and effectuate the mission,” Patel replied, adding: “No one at the FBI is terminated for case assignments alone.”

The line of questioning came amid reports and a lawsuit alleging Patel has taken direct instructions from the White House to fire individuals involved in the Trump investigations.

Three former senior FBI officials — Spencer L. Evans, Brian J. Driscoll Jr. and Steven J. Jensen — brought the lawsuit after being fired from their jobs in a “campaign of retribution,” according to the filing, a 68-page document that paints Patel as a vassal of Trump prioritizing his social media image over the work of the bureau.

“Patel not only acted unlawfully, but deliberately chose to prioritize politicizing the FBI over protecting the American people,” the lawsuit reads.

But it was questioning over the Epstein case that set off Patel’s patience.

At the end of their exchange, Schiff asked the director how he could possibly be in the dark over the circumstances of a prison transfer for Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s close confidante serving 20 years in prison for aiding his abuse of hundreds of women and girls, to one of the most comfortable facilities in the federal penitentiary system. Patel erupted, calling Schiff a “buffoon” over his investigations of the president.

“Here’s the thing, Mr Patel,” Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, told Patel, ending a similarly heated exchange. “I think you’re not gonna be around long. I think this might be your last oversight hearing.”

“Because as much as you supplicate yourself to the will of Donald Trump and not the Constitution,” Booker added, “Donald Trump has shown us he is not loyal to people like you.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: L.A.’s online ‘hood’ culture turns real-world violence into viral content
The deep dive: Primm was once an affordable casino mecca for L.A. Now it has become a ghost town
The L.A. Times Special: White supremacists, death threats and ‘disgust’: Charlie Kirk’s killing roils Huntington Beach

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

ATLANTA — Georgia’s Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state who rejected Donald Trump’s call to help overturn the state’s 2020 election results, said Wednesday that he’s running for governor in 2026.

The wealthy engineering entrepreneur might appeal most to business-oriented Republicans who once dominated GOP primaries in Georgia, but he is pledging a strongly conservative campaign even while he remains scorned by Trump and his allies. Raffensperger’s entry into the field intensifies the primary in a state with an unbroken line of Republican governors since 2002.

“I’m a conservative Republican, and I’m prepared to make the tough decisions. I follow the law and the Constitution, and I’ll always do the right thing for Georgia no matter what,” Raffensperger said in an announcement video.

Raffensperger defied Trump’s wrath to win reelection in 2022, but he will again test GOP primary voters’ tolerance for a candidate so clearly targeted by the president. His first challenge may be to even qualify for the primary. Georgia’s Republican Party voted in June to ban Raffensperger from running under its banner, although the party chairman said that attempt might not go anywhere.

Two other top Republicans are already in the race — Lt. Gov. Burt Jones and Atty. Gen. Chris Carr. Jones swore himself to be a “duly elected and qualified” elector for Trump in 2020 even though Democrat Joe Biden had been declared the state’s winner. Carr sided with Raffensperger in rejecting challenges to the results. Other Republicans include Clark Dean, Scott Ellison and Gregg Kirkpatrick.

On the Democratic side, top candidates include former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, state Sen. Jason Esteves and former state Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond. Geoff Duncan, who like Raffensperger spurned Trump’s push to overturn the 2020 election as Republican lieutenant governor, entered the governor’s race Tuesday as a Democrat.

In the national spotlight

Raffensperger spent most of his first two years in office battling lawsuits filed by Democrats that fruitlessly alleged Georgia, under then-Secretary of State Brian Kemp, engaged in illegal voter suppression in 2018 in Kemp’s victory over Democrat Stacey Abrams. Raffensperger also was tasked to roll out new Dominion voting machines for a 2020 election thrown off-kilter by the coronavirus pandemic.

Biden’s narrow win in Georgia changed things. Raffensperger said publicly that he wished Trump had won, but firmly held that he saw no evidence of widespread fraud or voting irregularities. Trump and his partisans ratcheted up attacks.

In his 2021 book, “Integrity Counts,” Raffensperger recounted death threats texted to his wife, an encounter with men whom he suspected of staking out his home, and being escorted out of the Georgia Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as a handful of protesters entered the building on the day many more protesters stormed the U.S. Capitol.

But it was a phone call days earlier, on Jan. 2, that wrote Raffensperger’s name into history. Trump pressured the secretary of state to “find 11,780 votes” — enough to overturn Biden’s win in the state, repeatedly citing disproven claims of fraud and raising the prospect of “criminal offense” if officials didn’t change the vote count, according to a recording of the conversation.

Raffensperger pushed back, noting that lawsuits making those claims had been fruitless.

“We don’t agree that you have won,” Raffensperger told Trump.

Amy writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Hello and happy Monday.

Pigs are flying and Satan has on a puffer jacket. I know these things because the impossible is happening — I am writing about why Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace and Lauren Boebert are right.

And why California’s Republican congressional representatives should be ashamed and shamed.

You may know these women as beacons of the far right, maybe even the fringe-right, in Congress. Hailing from Georgia, South Carolina and Colorado, respectively, they have dabbled in QAnon conspiracy theories, including about sex trafficking and powerful pedophiles, among other questionable actions.

But I’ll say this for the trio — they’ve stayed true to their beliefs, even under direct pressure from the White House. So a (limited) shout-out to Greene, Mace and Boebert.

What am I talking about? Jeffrey Edward Epstein, of course (I think he committed enough crimes to earn his middle name included, serial killer style).

Boebert, Mace and Greene are three of only four Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives who have signed a discharge petition (a kind of work-around to bypass leadership) to release the full Epstein files, supposedly containing a trove of information on men who bought and sold sex with teenage girls.

“These are some of the richest, most powerful people in the world that could sue these women into poverty and homelessness,” Greene said at a recent news conference with some of the victims. “Yeah, it’s a scary thing to name names, but I will tell you, I’m not afraid to name names, and so if they want to give me a list, I will walk in that Capitol on the House floor, and I’ll say every damn name that abused these women. I can do that for them.”

And, to my immense shock at having something in common with Greene, I say — that is how it’s done, lady. You go.

Not a single Republican House member from California has backed releasing the Epstein files. Every California Democratic representative has signed. So let’s talk about that.

I am sick of Epstein. Why are you writing this?

Like most of you, I too am tired of hearing endless political chatter about Epstein.

For the blessedly uniformed among you, Epstein was an extremely rich dude. No one is quite sure where all that money came from, but he apparently used a great deal of it to buy influence with powerful men, and sex traffic underage girls — allegedly children as young as 11 .

He died by suicide while in jail in 2019 (lots of conspiracy theories on whether it was in fact suicide) but in 2021 his paramour-partner Ghislaine Noelle Maxwell was also convicted of child sex trafficking and other offenses.

Epstein and Maxwell have ties to Donald Trump, including a much-discussed “birthday book” that honestly I do not care about other than to say, “Ick.” That has made the whole thing an endless political brouhaha.

But many of the many victims of Epstein and Maxwell have called for their information to be released by the Justice Department, which holds more than 100,000 pages of the investigation. They, like survivors of sexual assault everywhere, want accountability, if justice remains elusive. They want names named. They want to stop being afraid, stop being stuck by their pain and their past, and allow the world to decide, if courts won’t, just how much truth they are telling.

These are brave women who were brutalized as children for the pleasure of men with money. They have a right to have their stories known if that’s what they choose.

This is not politics. This is decency.

The California problem

Like Greene, I’m willing to name some names. Here they are — California’s GOP representatives in the House:

Releasing the Epstein files requires only one of them to sign the discharge petition. Just one of these fine representatives from the Golden State could do the right thing, stand for a bipartisan value that Californians of both parties hold — sex trafficking is bad — and show what real leadership looks like.

Anyone? Anyone?

“If Epstein survivors want this information released, it should be released. These women have had the courage to speak out and it’s infuriating that Congress would block release of information — they’d rather help with a cover-up than stand with survivors,” state Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) told me.

She’s a former state Justice Department prosecutor who specialized in trafficking, and has worked on controversial bipartisan legislation at the Capitol with Republican Sen. Shannon Grove of Bakersfield. That legislation earned her the ire of her own party, but on an issue this important, she did what she believed was right over what was easy.

“Protecting kids and standing up for survivors of human trafficking should not be a partisan issue and in California, we’ve shown it doesn’t have to be,” Krell said.

In fact, the discharge petition in the House is a bipartisan effort — introduced by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and our own Ro Khanna of California, a Democrat.

In particular, I’d like to call out Kiley for his hypocrisy. Recently, he introduced a bipartisan sex trafficking bill in Congress that’s a smart idea — the National Human Trafficking Database Act, which would create a database at the Department of Justice that tracks cases across the country. He did it with Reps. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga). Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) are carrying the bill in the Senate.

“We must do everything we can to prevent human trafficking and having the necessary tools at our disposal will bring us closer to stopping this awful crime,” Kiley said in a press release.

Huh.

Seems like Kiley gets the issue. Seems like he’s saying the right things. And for a guy about to be gerrymandered out of his own district — with his own party not seeming to care — he doesn’t have much to lose by doing the right thing and signing the discharge petition. My email to his office on the topic remains unanswered.

Liz Stein, an Epstein and Maxwell survivor who spoke at the news conference, said (as reported by the 19th News) that her life has never been the same since the abuse started. Since then, it has “felt like someone shut off the lights to my soul.”

There. Is. No. Excuse.

“This is not a partisan issue, but an American issue,” New Mexico Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, said in a press release. “To my Republican colleagues, if these heartbreaking stories aren’t enough, sign the petition for your daughters and for all the women in your lives that you would want protected from pedophiles. Because it’s not just about Epstein, but about all the women and children who are trafficked, abused, sexually assaulted, and ignored in their pain. The survivors today told their stories to not only push for the Epstein files to be released, but for a better future where women and girls are believed and supported, and abusers are held accountable.”

I can’t say it any more directly. Hiding behind politics on this one is the act of a coward.

If you won’t stand up against the rape of children, what do you stand for?

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: L.A. fires burned their block. For each, the disaster was just beginning.
The what happened: Lawyers fear 1,000 children from Central America, dozens in California, are at risk of being deported
The L.A. Times special: What the writings on the bullet casings from Charlie Kirk’s killer might mean

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

From the outside looking in, Gov. Gavin Newsom unofficially announced he was running for president on Thursday, March 30, 2023, the day he transferred $10 million from his state campaign funds to launch his PAC, Campaign for Democracy, along with a nationwide tour. Newsom unofficially suspended his campaign a month later, on April 25, the day President Biden announced he was seeking reelection.

This timeline is important when it comes to talking about Kamala Harris. Newsom, like Harris, has been in the wings for years as part of the next generation of Democratic national leaders — and, like Harris, he was ready for the spotlight when Biden decided to stick around instead.

The title of Harris’ upcoming book, “107 Days,” is in reference to the amount of time she had to launch a campaign, write policy, secure the nomination and fundraise after Biden bowed out in the summer of 2024. An excerpt from the memoir titled “The Constant Battle” was published this week in the Atlantic. In it, Harris suggests some of the foes she was battling during her time in the White House were Biden loyalists who did not want to see her succeed as vice president.

It’s a rather scathing critique given the stakes of the 2024 election. The excerpt in its entirety is an uncomfortable glimpse into one of the most chaotic moments in American politics. Unsurprisingly there have already been reports of pushback from former Biden aides with one being quoted as saying: “No one wants to hear your pity party.”

Which is why it is important to remember the timeline.

In March 2020, while campaigning in Detroit, a 77-year-old Biden stood next to Harris, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and told his party that he viewed himself “as a bridge, not as anything else,” adding: “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country.” Recognizing his age was a concern for voters back then, the message Biden sent that day suggested he was running for only one term.

And then more than three years later, Biden changed his mind and his message. In doing so, he did not just go back on a campaign promise, he prevented the future of his party — like Newsom, Whitmer, Booker and Harris — from making a case for themselves in a normal primary.

That’s why the book is called “107 Days.” That’s how much time he gave his would-be successor to win the presidency.

Biden was a tremendous public servant whose leadership steered this nation out of a dark time. He also was conspicuously old when he ran for president and considered a short-timer. The first woman to be elected vice president didn’t decide to run for the top job at the last minute. But Biden went back on his word in 2023 and drained all the energy out of his party. It was only after the disastrous debate performance of June 2024 that the whispers inside the Beltway about his ability to win finally became screams.

“Joe was already polling badly on the age issue, with roughly 75 percent of voters saying he was too old to be an effective president,” Harris writes. “Then he started taking on water for his perceived blank check to Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza.”

That’s not slander against Biden; that’s the timeline. It may not be what some progressives want to read, but that does not mean the message or messenger is wrong.

Legend has it James Carville, key strategist for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential run, once went to a white board at the campaign’s headquarters in Arkansas and wrote three key messaging points for staffers. The catchiness and humor of one, “the economy, stupid,” elevated it above the other two: “change vs. more of the same” and “don’t forget health care.” Clinton’s victory would later cement “the economy, stupid” as one of the Democratic Party’s most enduring political quips — which is really too bad.

Because the whole point of Carville going to the white board in the first place wasn’t to come up with a memorable zinger, it was to remind staffers to stay on the course. The Democrats’ 2024 chances were endangered the day Biden changed direction by running for reelection, not when he stepped aside and Harris stood in the gap.

That’s not to suggest her campaign did everything right or Biden staying in for as long as he did was totally wrong. But there’s a lot to learn right now. Democrats are extremely unpopular. Perhaps instead of dismissing the account of the party’s most recent nominee, former Biden aides and other progressives should take in as much information as they possibly can and consider it constructive feedback.

In 2020, Biden had one message. In 2023, it was the opposite. I’m sure there are things to blame Harris for. Losing the 2024 election isn’t one of them.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

WASHINGTON — Warning signs of eroding trust in public health under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have prompted growing calls for his resignation from Democratic lawmakers, career public servants and his own family. But one doctor-turned-governor has other ideas.

Democratic Gov. Josh Green of Hawaii, a career emergency room physician, has privately pressed the Trump administration to create a new post for Kennedy that would remove him from responsibility over vaccines, while allowing him to focus on areas of public health where his theories enjoy greater scientific backing — on nutrition, pesticides and chronic disease, the governor said in an interview.

“They’ve simply gone too far, and it’s not the president who’s gone too far. It’s Secretary Kennedy,” Green told The Times, suggesting two Republican appointees — Mehmet Oz, Trump’s current administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Jerome Adams, former U.S. surgeon general during Trump’s first term — as potential replacements he would publicly support.

“We’re entering flu season,” Green said. “These viruses, if people aren’t vaccinated, will cause large numbers of excess fatalities, and there will be no one to look to for responsibility other than the secretary of Health.”

“I recommended it to people at the highest levels, and I have worked hard to maintain a constructive relationship with the current administration,” Green added. “It’s up to them to make this call. But you can see now that it’s very possible.”

A tense public hearing on Capitol Hill last week laid bare bipartisan concerns over Kennedy’s vaccine skepticism, with three Republican senators — Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, John Barrasso of Wyoming and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — expressing alarm at turmoil within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over vaccine guidance and accessibility.

Kennedy, at the hearing, stated without evidence that COVID-19 vaccines had caused harm and death, and questioned CDC statistics on how many lives they had saved.

“The president is not pleased deep down with this as a distraction,” Green added. “It is not helpful to any administration to have outbreaks.”

A Western health alliance

Without changes in Washington, Hawaii will join a burgeoning alliance of western states to issue independent public health guidance, Green said.

The West Coast Health Alliance, formed this month by California, Washington and Oregon, will issue recommendations that rely on many of the career scientists and experts dismissed by Kennedy in recent months, as well as organizations such as the the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Assn.

Hawaii Gov. Josh Green shown during a black-tie dinner at the White House in 2024.

(Anna Rose Layden / Getty Images)

Kenneth Fink, director of the Hawaii Department of Health, will be the state’s day-to-day representative to the alliance. But “as a physician, I’m also available to the group, to help bring other experts from across the country into the fold,” Green said.

The collective has not yet decided whether to set up a formal alternative to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, a vaccine advisory panel of experts whose entire membership was fired by Kennedy and replaced by vaccine skeptics.

But many experts are already in touch with Green and other members of the alliance, which has begun discussing how to structure itself.

Green, 55, will serve next year as head of the Western Governors Assn., representing 19 states west of the Mississippi River, and is encouraging other states to join the effort, including those led by Republicans. “I really do want to take public health out of politics,” he said.

Already, Green and his counterparts have discussed executive actions they can take at the gubernatorial level, in coordination across the alliance, to protect vaccine access.

Vaccines pushed off-label by the FDA may need special authorization for access, for example. States may also need to fund vaccine access to individuals who fall outside new federal recommendations for eligibility.

Hawaii already anticipates having to spend $15 million in state dollars to ensure everyone who wants a COVID booster shot can receive one, supplementing federal funding, the governor said.

“There are going to be some needs to use executive orders from us as governors,” Green said. “I will be doing that. And I’ll be recommending that to my colleagues in the alliance.”

A national security threat

In May, Green traveled to Washington to testify before a Senate subcommittee where Republican lawmakers were holding a hearing titled, “The Corruption of Science and Federal Health Agencies.” Its main target was the administration of COVID vaccines.

Green was the sole defender of the pandemic response on a six-member panel.

“As a physician, I cared for patients all the way through the COVID pandemic, and we would have had thousands of additional deaths if we didn’t vaccinate our state,” he said. “This is no joke.”

“Mr. Kennedy referred to his Senate hearing as theater,” he added. “It’s not theater when you’re an ER doc and you’re caring for patients and having to intubate them.”

Hawaii emerged from the pandemic with the lowest mortality rate of any state in the union, and one of the highest vaccination rates. Green served as lieutenant governor at the time.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. testifies before the Senate Finance Committee.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

A CDC analysis presented in June, under Kennedy’s leadership, found that COVID vaccines “have been evaluated under the most extensive safety monitoring program in U.S. history,” rejecting conspiracy theories around their association with a range of alleged side effects.

The CDC has found a rare but statistically significant number of cases of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart, in males between ages 18 and 24 who have taken the shots, 90% of whom experience full recoveries and resulting in no known deaths.

Under Kennedy, for the first time since its introduction, the COVID vaccine has become difficult to find. The FDA has revoked emergency-use authorization for the shots and is recommending them only for individuals over 65 years old, or those over 5 with underlying health conditions.

The Trump administration has also gutted funding of the National Institutes of Health and cut $500 million in funding for mRNA vaccine research, a development that Green called an imminent risk to national security, allowing countries such as China to dominate access to critical technologies during future public health emergencies that could leave Americans vulnerable.

Trump himself has indicated concern, last week telling reporters, “I think you have to be very careful when you say that some people don’t have to be vaccinated. It’s a very, you know, it’s a very tough position.”

“You have vaccines that work. They just pure and simple work,” Trump added. “They’re not controversial at all. And I think those vaccines should be used, otherwise some people are going to catch it and they endanger other people. And when you don’t have controversy at all, I think people should take it.”

Green saw Trump’s remarks as a sign of a potential shift.

“I think that Secretary Kennedy is doing our country a disservice, and frankly, he’s doing the president a disservice,” Green said. “This is going to hurt the president of the United States and his administration.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Barabak: ‘I think it was recklessness’: Harris bashes Biden for late exit from 2024 campaign
The deep dive: California has a strict vaccine mandate. Will it survive the Trump administration?
The L.A. Times Special: Fewer jobs, AI threats and rising healthcare costs. A tough role for SAG-AFTRA’s new leader

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

When Kamala Harris left the White House, she was trailed by three big questions.

She’s now answered two of them.

First off, the former vice president will not be running for California governor in 2026. After months of will-or-won’t-she speculation, the Democrat took a pass on a race that was Harris’ to lose because, plainly, her heart just wasn’t into a return to Sacramento.

On Wednesday, with publication of the first excerpts from her 2024 campaign diary, Harris answered a second question: What kind of book — candid or pablum-filled — would she produce?

The answer flows directly to the third and largest remaining question, whether Harris attempts a third try for the White House in 2028.

If she does, and the portions published Wednesday by the Atlantic magazine give no clue one way or the other, she’ll have some work to do mollifying the person who made her vice president, thus vaulting Harris to top-tier status should she run again.

That would be one Joe Biden.

Harris’ book — “107 Days” — recounts the shortest presidential campaign in modern U.S. history.

It’s no tell-all.

Surely, there’s a good deal of inside dope, juicy gossip and backstage intrigues that Harris is holding back for political, personal or practical reasons.

Still, it’s a tell-plenty.

The headline-grabbiest passage is Harris’ suggestion that Biden, felled by a thoroughly wretched debate performance that showed the ravages of his advanced age, should have stepped aside before being effectively forced off the Democratic ticket.

“ ‘It’s Joe and Jill’s decision,’ “ Harris wrote. “We all said that, like a mantra, as if we’d all been hypnotized. Was it grace, or was it recklessness? In retrospect, I think it was recklessness. The stakes were simply too high.

“This wasn’t a choice that should have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition,” she went on. “It should have been more than a personal decision.”

The relationship between Harris and Jill Biden, which was famously glacial, will surely turn Arctic-cold with Wednesday’s revelations. And Biden’s thin-skinned husband, who still harbors the fanciful belief he would beaten Donald Trump had he been the Democratic nominee, isn’t likely to be any more pleased.

There’s more.

Harris suggests in many ways Biden was more hindrance than helpmate as she struggled to step out from the shadow that inevitably shrouds the vice president.

When Biden finally spoke to the nation to explain his abdication and anointment of Harris as his chosen successor, Harris notes he waited nearly nine minutes into an 11-minute address to offer his cursory blessing.

She also expresses a deep personal pique toward Team Biden and West Wing staffers who had little faith in Harris or her political abilities and had no hesitation stating so — in private, anyway.

“When the stories were unfair or inaccurate, the president’s inner circle seemed fine with it,” Harris wrote. “Indeed, it seemed as if they decided I should be knocked down a little bit more.

“Worse, I often learned that the president’s staff was adding fuel to negative narratives that sprang up around me.”

Fact check: True.

But Harris also skates around certain hard truths, suggesting the staff turnover that plagued her early in her vice presidency was just the normal Beltway churn.

Harris has a reputation for being an imperious and difficult boss — it’s not misogynistic to say so — and she did suffer a notably high level of staff burnout and turnover that hindered her vice presidential operation.

Harris embarrassed herself in some stumbling TV appearances — especially early in her vice presidency — and it’s not racist to point that out. She has no one to blame but herself.

Perhaps most critically, Harris bequeathed the Trump campaign a sterling political gift late in the campaign when she appeared on the TV chatfest “The View” and, served up a softball of a question, whiffed it spectacularly.

“What, if anything,” Harris was asked, “would you have done … differently than President Biden during the past four years?”

It’s a question she could have easily anticipated. The separation of a president and the vice president looking to follow him into the Oval Office is a political rite of passage, though always a fraught and delicate one.

It’s necessary to show voters not just a hint of independence but also a bit of spine.

George H.W. Bush handled the maneuver with aplomb and succeeded Ronald Reagan. Hubert Humphrey and Al Gore did not, and both lost.

Given her chance, Harris squandered a choice opportunity to put some badly needed space between herself and the dismally regarded Biden.

“There is not a thing that comes to mind,” was her tinny response, and that gaffe is entirely on the former vice president.

It didn’t necessarily cost her the White House. There were plenty of reasons Harris lost. But at a time when voters were virtually shouting out loud for change in Washington it stamped the vice president, quite unhelpfully, as more of the same.

‘I am a loyal person,” Harris writes, which is not only self-justifying but has the slightly off-putting whiff of someone declaring, by golly, I’m just too honest.

Perhaps behind closed doors she screamed and raged, telling the octogenarian Biden he was old and senile and sure to cost Democrats the White House and deliver the nation to the evil clutches of Donald Trump — though that seems doubtful.

“Many people want to spin up a narrative of some big conspiracy at the White House to hide Joe Biden’s infirmity,” she wrote.

In fact, she said, Biden was “fully able to discharge the duties of president.”

“On his worst day, he was more deeply knowledgeable, more capable of exercising judgment, and far more compassionate than Donald Trump on his best.”

Fact Check: Again, true.

“But at 81,” Harris went on, “Joe got tired. … I don’t believe it was incapacity. If I believed that, I would have said so. As loyal as I am to President Biden, I am more loyal to my country.”

Plenty of books have been written offering insider accounts of the White House and presenting far more dire accounts of Biden’s physical and mental acuity. Many more are sure to come.

Harris’ contribution to the oeuvre remains to be seen. Her book is set for publication on Sept. 23 and there is a lot more to come beyond the excerpts just published.

What has been revealed is Harris’ eagerness to settle old scores, to right the record as she sees it and to angrily and publicly call out some of her perceived enemies — including some still active in Democratic politics.

How does that affect her prospects for 2028 and what does it say about whether Harris runs again for president?

You can read into it what you will.

WASHINGTON — Former President Biden has decided to build his presidential library in Delaware and has tapped a group of former aides, friends and political allies to begin the heavy lift of fundraising and finding a site for the museum and archive.

The Joe and Jill Biden Foundation this past week approved a 13-person governance board that is charged with steering the project. The board includes former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, longtime adviser Steve Ricchetti, prolific Democratic fundraiser Rufus Gifford and others with deep ties to the one-term president and his wife.

Biden’s library team has the daunting task of raising money for the 46th president’s legacy project at a moment when his party has become fragmented about the way ahead and many big Democratic donors have stopped writing checks.

It also remains to be seen whether corporations and institutional donors that have historically donated to presidential library projects — regardless of the party of the former president — will be more hesitant to contribute, with President Trump maligning Biden on a daily basis and savaging groups he deems left-leaning.

The political climate has changed

“There’s certainly folks — folks who may have been not thinking about those kinds of issues who are starting to think about them,” Gifford, who was named chairman of the library board, told The Associated Press. “That being said … we’re not going to create a budget, we’re not going to set a goal for ourselves that we don’t believe we can hit.”

The cost of presidential libraries has soared over the decades.

The George H.W. Bush library’s construction cost came in at about $43 million when it opened in 1997. Bill Clinton’s cost about $165 million. George W. Bush’s team met its $500 million fundraising goal before the library was dedicated.

The Obama Foundation has set a whopping $1.6 billion fundraising goal for construction, sustaining global programming and seeding an endowment for the Chicago presidential center that is slated to open next year.

Biden’s library team is still in the early stages of planning, but Gifford predicted that the cost of the project would probably “end up somewhere in the middle” of the Obama Presidential Center and the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum.

Biden advisers have met with officials operating 12 of the 13 presidential libraries with a bricks and mortar presence that the National Archives and Records Administration manages. (They skipped the Herbert Hoover library in Iowa, which is closed for renovations.) They’ve also met Obama library officials to discuss programming and location considerations and have begun talks with Delaware leaders to assess potential partnerships.

Private money builds them

Construction and support for programming for the libraries are paid for with private funds donated to the nonprofit organizations established by the former president.

The initial vision is for the Biden library to include an immersive museum detailing Biden’s four years in office.

The Bidens also want it to be a hub for leadership, service and civic engagement that will include educational and event space to host policy gatherings.

Biden, who ended his bid for a second White House term 107 days before last year’s election, has been relatively slow to move on presidential library planning compared with most of his recent predecessors.

Clinton announced Little Rock, Arkansas, would host his library weeks into his second term. Barack Obama selected Jackson Park on Chicago’s South Side as the site for his presidential center before he left office, and George W. Bush selected Southern Methodist University in Dallas before finishing his second term.

One-termer George H.W. Bush announced in 1991, more than a year before he would lose his reelection bid, that he would establish his presidential library at Texas A&M University after he left office.

Trump taps legal settlements for his

Trump was mostly quiet about plans for a presidential library after losing to Biden in 2020 and has remained so since his return to the White House this year. But the Republican has won millions of dollars in lawsuits against Paramount Global, ABC News, Meta and X in which parts of those settlements are directed for a future Trump library.

Trump has also accepted a free Air Force One replacement from the Qatar government. He says the $400 million plane would be donated to his future presidential library, similar to how the Boeing 707 used by President Ronald Reagan was decommissioned and put on display as a museum piece, once he leaves office.

Others named to Biden’s library board are former senior White House aides Elizabeth Alexander, Julissa Reynoso Pantaleón and Cedric Richmond; David Cohen, a former ambassador to Canada and telecom executive; Tatiana Brandt Copeland, a Delaware philanthropist; Jeff Peck, Biden Foundation treasurer and former Senate aide; Fred C. Sears II, Biden’s longtime friend; former Labor Secretary Marty Walsh; former Office of Management and Budget director Shalanda Young; and former Delaware Gov. Jack Markell.

Biden has deep ties to Pennsylvania but ultimately settled on Delaware, the state that was the launching pad for his political career. He was first elected to the New Castle County Council in 1970 and spent 36 years representing Delaware in the Senate before serving as Obama’s vice president.

The president was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where he lived until age 10. He left when his father, struggling to make ends meet, moved the family to Delaware after landing a job there selling cars.

Working-class Scranton became a touchstone in Biden’s political narrative during his long political career. He also served as a professor at the University of Pennsylvania after his vice presidency, leading a center on diplomacy and global engagement at the school named after him.

Gifford said ultimately the Bidens felt that Delaware was where the library should be because the state has “propelled his entire political career.”

Elected officials in Delaware are cheering Biden’s move.

“To Delaware, he will always be our favorite son,” Gov. Matt Meyer said. “The new presidential library here in Delaware will give future generations the chance to see his story of resilience, family, and never forgetting your roots.”

Madhani writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Sneha Revanur has been called the “Greta Thunberg of AI,” which depending on your politics, is an insult or, as the youngs would say, means she’s eating.

That’s good.

Either way, Revanur, a 20-year-old Stanford University senior who grew up in Silicon Valley, isn’t worried about personal attacks, though she’s been getting more of them lately — especially from some big tech bros who wish she’d shut up about artificial intelligence and its potential to accidentally (or purposefully) destroy us all.

Instead of fretting about invoking the ire of some of the most powerful men on the planet, she’s staying focused on the breakneck speed with which AI is advancing; the utter ignorance, even resistance, of politicians when it comes to putting in place the most basic of safety measures to control it; and what all that will mean for kids who will grow up under its influence.

“Whatever long-term future AI creates, whether that’s positive or negative, it’s [my generation] that’s going to experience that,” she told me. “We’re going to inherit the impacts of the technology we’re building today.”

This week, California will make a big decision about that future, as legislators vote on Senate Bill 53.

Because I am a tech idiot who struggles to even change the brightness on my phone’s display, I will use the simplest of metaphors, which I am sure will make engineers wince.

Imagine lighting your gas stove, then leaving on vacation. Maybe it will all be fine. Maybe it will start a fire and burn your house down. Maybe it blows up and takes out the neighborhood.

Do you cross your fingers and hope for the best? Do your neighbors have a right to ask you to pretty please turn it off before you go? Should you at least put a smoke alarm up, so there’s a bit of warning if things go wrong?

The smoke alarm in this scenario is SB 53.

The bill is a basic transparency measure and applies only to the big-gun developers of “frontier” AI models — these are the underlying, generic AI creatures that may later be honed into a specific purpose, like controlling our nuclear weapons, curing cancer or writing term papers for cheating students.

But right now, companies are just seeing how smart and powerful they can make them, leaving any concerns about what they will actually do for the future — and for people like Revanur, whose lives will be shaped by them.

If passed, the law would require these developers to have safety and security protocols and make them public.

It would require that they also disclose if they are aware of any ways that their product has indicated it may in fact destroy us all, or cause “catastrophic” problems, defined as ones with the potential to kill or seriously injure more than 50 people or cause more than $1 billion in property damage.

It requires the companies to report those risks to the state Office of Emergency Services, and also to report if their models try to sneakily get around commands to not do something — like lying — a first requirement of its kind in law.

And it creates a whistleblower protection so that if, say, an engineer working on one of these models suddenly finds herself receiving threats from the AI (yes, this has happened), she can, if the company won’t, give us a heads-up about the danger before it’s unleashed.

There are a couple other rules in there, but that’s the gist of it. Basically, it gives us a tiny glimpse inside the companies that quite literally hold the future of humanity in their hands but are largely driven by the desire to make oodles of money.

Big Tech has lobbied full force against the bill (and has been successful in watering it down some). Enter Revanur and the AI safety organization she started when she was 15: Encode.

The California Capitol is nothing if not a mean high school, so maybe Revanur was more prepared than the suits expected. But her group of “backpack kids,” as they have been derogatorily called, has lobbied in favor of government oversight of AI with such force and effect that SB 53 actually has a chance of passing. This week, it is likely to receive final votes in both the Assembly and Senate, before potentially heading to the governor’s desk.

I’m not huge on quoting lobbyists, but Lea-Ann Tratten summed it up pretty well.

Revanur and her group have gone from being dismissed with a “who are you, you’re nothing” attitude from lawmakers to having “an equal seat at the table” with the clouty tech bros and their billions, Tratten said. And they’ve done it through sheer persistence (though they are not the only advocacy group working on the bill).

Tratten was hired by Encode last year when Revanur was backing a much stronger piece of legislation by the same author, Sen. Scott Wiener. That bill, SB 1047, would have regulated the AI industry, not just watched over it.

Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed that bill, basically saying it went too far, but still acknowledging that a “California-only approach may well be warranted especially absent federal action by Congress.” He also set up a commission to recommend how to do that, which released its report recently — much of which is incorporated into the current legislation.

But since that veto, Congress has indicated approximately zero interest in taking on AI. And last week, Trump hosted a formal dinner for the titans of AI where they sucked up to the businessman-in-chief, leaving little hope of any federal curbs on their aspirations.

Shortly after that meal, the White House sent out a press release entitled, “President Trump, Tech Leaders Unite to Power American AI Dominance.”

In it, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, gushed, “Thank you for being such a pro-business, pro-innovation President. It’s a very refreshing change. We’re very excited to see what you’re doing to make our companies and our entire country so successful.”

That left me wondering who exactly will be dominated. OpenAI recently sent a subpoena to Encode, digging around to see if it’s being funded by competitor Elon Musk (who is in a notoriously nasty legal battle with Altman), and demanding all their emails and communications about the bill. Revanur said Encode has no affiliation with Musk other than having filed an amicus brief in his lawsuit, and those claims are “ridiculous and baseless.”

“Like, we know for a fact that we have no affiliation with Elon,” she said.

Still, “people expect us to sort of hide in the corner and stop what we’re doing,” because of the pressure, she said.

But that’s not going to happen.

“We’re going to keep doing what we’re doing,” she said. “Just being a balanced, objective, thoughtful third party that’s able to be this watchdog, almost, as the most powerful technology of all time is developed. I think that’s a really important role for us.”

Right now, AI is in its toddler stages, and it’s already outsmarting us in dangerous ways. The New York Times documented how it may have pushed a teen to suicide.

In July, Musk’s AI tool Grok randomly starting calling itself “MechaHitler” and began making antisemitic comments, according to the Wall Street Journal. Another AI model apparently resorted to blackmailing its maker when it was threatened with being turned off.

An AI safety researcher familiar with that blackmail incident, Aengus Lynch, warned it wasn’t a one-off, according to the BBC.

“We see blackmail across all frontier models — regardless of what goals they’re given,” he said.

So here we are in the infancy of a technology that will profoundly change society, and we already know the genie is out of the bottle, has stolen the car keys and is on a bender.

Before we get to the point of having to choose who will go back in time to save Sarah Connor from Skynet and the Terminator, maybe we just don’t go there. Maybe we start with SB 53, and listen to smart, young people like Revanur who have both the knowledge to understand the technology and a real stake in getting it right.

Maybe we put up the smoke alarm, whether the billionaire tech bros like it or not.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ICE Agents Are Wearing Masks. Is That Un-American?
The Sign of the Times: In face of extreme heat, L.A. may require landlords to keep their rentals cool
The L.A. Times Special: A ‘Roomba for the forest’ could be SoCal’s next wildfire weapon

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

HELLO AND HAPPY THURSDAY. IT’S ME, ANITA LYNNE CHABRIA, COMING TO YOU IN ALL CAPS — BECAUSE THAT’S NOW HOW POLITICS IS DONE.

No, I won’t really torment you with shift-lock psychosis. But we will be diving into Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wildly successful social media trolling of Donald Trump. Although much has been written about his parody of the president’s bombastic style, replete with weird syntax and tongue-in-cheek self-aggrandizement, it turns out it’s far more than just entertaining.

More than any other Democratic presidential hopeful out there, the social media offensive has raised both his profile and political fortunes — and highlighted some uncomfortable truths about American politics in this moment when the vast majority of voters are getting their information in 20-second snippets on TikTok, YouTube and X: Social media is not the sideshow, it’s the main event.

But it’s about more than GCN (Gavin Christopher Newsom, as he now signs his posts) making it to the Resolute desk.

Whether you love Newsom or hate him, California is the epicenter on the resistance to Trump’s push to expand presidential powers into authoritarianism. In courts, in the Legislature and on social media, this is the state that has fought back most effectively.

Newsom’s recent decision to throw caution and subservience to the wind is at the heart of that, a move from frenemy to fighter that is essential to shaping and protecting the future of our democracy. One cheeky post at a time.

The seed of inspiration

How did we wind up here? Although January may seem like eons ago, it was in reality only nine short months since Newsom showed up uninvited on the tarmac in L.A. to greet Trump, even embrace him, as the president came to view the fire damage in Pacific Palisades and Altadena.

Newsom was still in that frenemy phase, trying to reason with, flatter and cajole a president who demands praise, but who, like the fable of the scorpion and the frog, will always attack because it’s in his nature. California needs fire aid, and as Newsom said at the time, “I hope he comes with a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. That’s the spirit to which we welcome him.”

That, however, didn’t work out great. Trump not only dillydallied with fire money, threatening conditions, he also sent the National Guard into L.A. for a nonexistent emergency around immigration protests, then strong-armed Texas into redrawing voting maps to help ensure MAGA keeps control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections.

So now California has Proposition 50, the effort to redraw our own maps to find more Democratic seats, and a hoppin’-mad governor (get that frog reference?) who knows a scorpion when he sees one.

What does this have to do with social media, you ask? In mid-August GCN wrote to DJT with one last peace offering: California would stop its push for redistricting if other states stopped as well. No luck, big surprise.

But staffers at Newsom’s office were in a mood, and thought it would be funny to tweet out the last paragraph of that letter in all caps, Trump-style. The only change? Switching the last line from the statesman-like “And America will be better for it” to the Trump-favored “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

And there, in a moment of frustration and gallows humor — no grand strategy intended — the seed of inspiration was planted.

The Result

That post has received 5 million views so far, and emboldened Newsom to go further. Since then, his trolling has been both prolific, pointed, and extremely popular.

The X account where Newsom does most of his smack-posting, @GovPressOffice, gained more than 500,000 followers in recent weeks, and racked up more than 480 million impressions. That’s up 450%, according to CNN’s Harry Enten.

He’s been in demand on traditional media as well (and seems to be living rent-free in the brains of right-wing Fox commentators), and has made himself available to digital content creators — who have helped him reach more than 30 million views across various platforms.

Newsom’s speech about the National Guard coming into L.A. — at nine minutes long, an eternity these days — was viewed more 40 million times in a week.

And, as Enten also pointed out, 75% of California Democrats now say they want Newsom to run for president, and betting markets give Newsom a 24% chance of being the Democratic nominee, rating him with the highest potential in the pack.

Love-bombed with all that success, Newsom has pushed further into the rage-baiting. The “GCN” sign-off? That came from Newsom himself. But there’s a team behind the effort, and they’re running 24/7 to keep the big, beautiful bludgeoning going.

But what about democracy?

Great for Newsom, you say, but how does a meme of him with bulging biceps save democracy? Here’s the thing I learned covering the rise not just of Trump, but of the extremist and fringe ideologies such as QAnon that fueled his base: It would not happen without social media.

Social media is the sauce that has seasoned this change in our politics, which sounds obvious but is much deeper than most realize. Social media created communities, communities largely without physical or ethical boundaries. Anything goes, and the more intense and crazy, the deeper it tends to go. The more people believe, the more involved they become.

Short take: Social media spreads extremism.

But can social media also spread resistance?

The hardest parts of an autocracy are division and fear. It feels lonely and scary to speak out. Newsom has done two crucial things with his social media barrage.

First, he showed us that the Republicans were right all along. For years, the far-right has found Trump’s social media hilarious, and all the funnier because Democrats were outraged by its crassness, vulgarity and childishness. Many Democrats found no humor in a president behaving in ways that would get their own teenagers grounded.

But as soon as Newsom did it, Democrats were the ones who found it funny, especially the irony-free Republican outrage. And empowering. And awesome. Suddenly, they got the joke.

In copying, Newsom was subverting — not just holding up a mirror to the bad behavior, but revealing that Democrats have in fact had a stick somewhere unnecessary and need to admit that low humor tickles the American fancy. He has given Democrats something light and amusing to rally around, creating community that has been sadly lacking.

And community is where resistance thrives, same as with extremism. When people feel not alone, they feel stronger.

That’s the second thing Newsom has brought with his trolling. Democrats, Republicans, democracy-backers of any stripe are relieved to laugh at Trump together — because nothing undermines his power more than a collective chuckle at his expense.

Like this:

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: The AI Doomsday Machine Is Closer to Reality Than You Think
The what happened: Trump can’t use Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan gang members, court rules
The L.A. Times special: California pushes back on Trump’s CDC with West Coast Health Alliance

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

WASHINGTON — President Trump has asked the Supreme Court for a fast-tracking ruling that he has broad power acting on his own to impose tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

Despite losing in the lower courts, Trump and his lawyers have reason to believe they can win in the Supreme Court. The six conservative justices believe in strong presidential power, particularly in the area of foreign policy and national security.

In a three-page appeal filed Wednesday evening, they proposed the court decide by Wednesday to grant review and to hear arguments in early November.

They said the lower court setbacks, unless quickly reversed, “gravely undermine the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”

They cited Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s warning about the potential for economic disruption if the court does not act soon.

“Delaying a ruling until June 26 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion have already been collected and unwinding them could cause significant disruption.” he wrote.

Trump and his tariffs ran into three strong arguments in the lower courts.

First, the Constitution says Congress, not the president, has the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and a tariff is an import tax.

Second, the 1977 emergency powers law that Trump relies on does not mention tariffs, taxes or duties, and no previous president has used it to impose tariffs.

And third, the Supreme Court has frowned on recent presidents who relied on old laws to justify bold new costly regulations.

So far, however, the so-called “major questions” doctrine has been used to restrict Democratic presidents, not Republicans.

Three years ago, the court’s conservative majority struck down a major climate change regulation proposed by Presidents Obama and Biden that could have transformed the electric power industry on the grounds it was not clearly based on the Clean Air Acts of the 1970s.

Two years ago, the court by the same 6-3 vote struck down Biden’s plan to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loans. Congress had said the Education Department may “waive or modify” monthly loan payments during a national emergency like the Covid 19 pandemic, but it did not say the loans may be forgiven, the court said. Its opinion noted the “staggering” cost could be more than $500 billion.

The impact of Trump’s tariffs figure to be at least five times greater, a federal appeals court said last week in ruling them illegal.

By a 7-4 vote, the federal circuit court cited all three arguments in ruling Trump had exceeded his legal authority.

“We conclude Congress, in enacting the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs,” they said.

But the outcome was not a total loss for Trump. The appellate judges put their decision on hold until the Supreme Court rules. That means Trump’s tariffs are likely to remain in effect for many months.

Trump’s lawyers were heartened by the dissent written by Judge Richard Taranto and joined by other others.

He argued that presidents are understood to have extra power when confronted with foreign threats to the nation’s security.

He called the 1977 law “an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm” that said the president may “regulate” the “importation” of dangerous products including drugs coming into this country.

Citing other laws from that era, he said Congress understood that tariffs and duties are a “common tool of import regulation.”

SACRAMENTO — There are echoes from California Republicans’ disastrous past in their solid support of the Trump administration’s ugly raids targeting Latinos suspected of illegal immigration.

California’s GOP apparently still hasn’t learned. Scaring, insulting and angering people is not an effective recruiting tool. It doesn’t draw them to your side. It drives them into the opposition camp.

That should have been a lesson learned three decades ago when Republicans strongly pushed a harsh anti-illegal immigration ballot initiative, Proposition 187. It became principally responsible for changing California from a politically competitive state to one where the GOP is essentially irrelevant.

This occurred to me when reading recent poll data that showed strong overall objection in California to President Trump’s oft-inhumane immigration enforcement policies — among virtually every group, that is, except Republican voters. They overwhelmingly support his tactics.

The in-depth poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies delved into voter attitudes toward Trump’s mass deportation actions.

On the basic question of his immigration enforcement strategy, 69% of registered voters disapproved and just 29% approved. But there was a sharp difference between political parties. Democrats almost unanimously disapproved — 95%. And 72% of independents were opposed. But 79% of Republicans approved.

Interviewers also asked about specifics. And GOP voters were with Trump all the way.

Strong majorities of Republicans disagreed that federal agents “have unfairly targeted Latino communities for their race or ethnicity,” believed the raids have “primarily focused” on undocumented “serious” criminals — although evidence shows that many law-abiders have been snatched — and thought “all undocumented immigrants need to be deported.”

Smaller Republican majorities disagreed that detained undocumented immigrants “have a right to due process” and a court hearing — although the due process clause of the 5th Amendment indicates they do — and agreed that “agents should expand enforcement into schools, hospitals, parks and other public locations.”

Democrats and independents expressed emphatically opposite views — and they greatly outnumber Republicans in California.

The parties also reported diametrically opposite feelings when viewing news accounts of raids by federal agents. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans said it made them feel “hopeful, like justice is finally being served.” Democrats said they were “enraged and/or sad. What is happening is unfair.”

Republicans were more divided on whether immigration agents should be required to show clear identification, such as wearing badges. Armed agents have been going incognito in street clothes, traveling in unmarked vehicles and wearing masks.

Among GOP voters, 50% opposed requiring identification and 45% supported the idea.

Two bills currently are awaiting votes in the state Assembly to require agent identification and ban masks in most circumstances.

“Agents have been running around wearing essentially ski masks, grabbing people, throwing them into unmarked cars and disappearing them,” says Sen. Mark Wiener (D-San Francisco), author of the mask ban bill. “In a democracy, we don’t have secret police running around masked.”

Listening to Republican voters, I’m hearing reverberations from 1994 when that GOP generation overwhelmingly backed Proposition 187, led by Gov. Pete Wilson, who was subsequently demonized by Democrats and, particularly, Latinos.

That now-infamous measure would have denied most public services — including schooling — to undocumented immigrants, and turned teachers and nurses into snitches. It passed by a landslide, but a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional.

Republicans voted for Proposition187 by 3 to 1 and independents by 3 to 2, according to a Los Angeles Times exit poll. Democrats opposed it by 2 to 1.

White people voted for Proposition 187 by 59% to 41% — the exact victory margin — but Latinos opposed it by 78% to 22%. Today, there are a lot fewer white people and lots more Latinos in California.

The measure awakened Latinos and spawned a new generation of Democratic political leaders, including U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, former L.A. Mayor and Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa and other legislative honchos.

And it instigated a hemorrhaging of Republican voters in California. In the November presidential election, Republicans amounted to only 25% of registered voters. In 1994, they were 37%. Many have since shifted to registering as independents, who amounted to only 10% back then and are 22% now. Democrats also have lost slightly to nonpartisan ranks, falling from 49% to 46%.

No Republican candidate has won a statewide race since 2006, and Democrats hold supermajorities in both legislative houses.

The GOP has been touting an uptick in Latino support in November’s election. But is that a trend, or just the reflection of a sorry Democratic presidential campaign? How will Latino voters react to immigration agents chasing people through farm fields, seizing teens without telling their parents and stalking picnickers?

“Republicans can talk about crime and homelessness and gas prices all they want but the immigration issue is a boulder in the road that will keep large numbers in California from listening to what they say on any other issue,” says Dan Schnur, a USC and UC Berkeley political science instructor who was Wilson’s spokesman in 1994.

GOP consultant Mike Madrid, who has written a book about how Latinos are transforming democracy, says Republicans “are limiting what could be a tidal wave of voters in their direction. They’re their own worst enemies.”

He adds: “Latinos are primarily economic voters but will respond when attacked. As long as the GOP resorts to anti-Latino appeals they’ll fight back.”

Republican voter attitudes also are symptomatic of today’s extremely polarized politics.

“Wherever Trump decides to steer the ship, Republicans are following him. Trump is the Pied Piper here,” says Mark DiCamillo, the IGS pollster.

Republican consultant Kevin Spillane theorized that Republican respondents in the poll were “rallying around Trump. They thought they were really being asked about him.”

Whatever. They need to evolve into the increasingly diverse 21st century. We can secure the border without storming churches, hospitals and schools.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Newsom, California lawmakers strike deal that would allow Uber, Lyft drivers to unionize
The TK: ‘The party is in shambles.’ But some Democrats see reasons for optimism
The L.A. Times Special: Their brotherly love transcends politics — and California’s tooth-and-nail redistricting fight

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

WASHINGTON — President Trump has revoked former Vice President Kamala Harris’ Secret Service protection that otherwise would have ended next summer, senior Trump administration officials said Friday.

Former vice presidents typically get federal government protection for six months after leaving office, while ex-presidents do so for life. But then-President Biden quietly signed a directive, at Harris’ request, that had extended protection for her beyond the traditional six months, according to another person familiar with the matter. The people insisted on anonymity to discuss a matter not made public.

Trump, a Republican, defeated Harris, a Democrat, in the presidential election last year.

His move to drop Harris’ Secret Service protection comes as the former vice president, who became the Democratic nominee last summer after a chaotic series of events that led to Biden dropping out of the contest, is about to embark on a book tour for her memoir, titled “107 Days.” The tour has 15 stops, including visits abroad to London and Toronto. The book, which refers to the historically short length of her presidential campaign, will be released Sept. 23, and the tour begins the following day.

A recent threat intelligence assessment the Secret Service conducts on those it protects, such as Harris, found no red flags or credible evidence of a threat to the former vice president, said a White House official who also insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The administration found no reason Harris’ protection should go beyond the standard six-month period for former vice presidents, the official said.

Trump’s vice president from his first term, Mike Pence, did not have extended Secret Service protection beyond the standard six months.

Still, it is not unusual for Secret Service protection to continue well beyond the statutory six-month window, particularly when former officials face credible and ongoing threats. But Trump’s decisions to revoke the protection have stood out both for timing and for targets.

During Trump’s second presidency, he repeatedly has cut off security for adversaries and figures who have fallen from favor, including his onetime national security advisor John Bolton and members of Biden’s family, including the former president’s adult children. Outgoing presidents can extend protection for those who might otherwise not be eligible; Trump did so for his family after leaving office in 2021.

The decision to strip Harris of protection is certain to raise alarms among security experts who view continuity of protection as essential in a polarized climate.

A senior Trump administration official said an executive memorandum was issued Thursday to the Department of Homeland Security ending Harris’ security detail and security services. Those had been extended from six to 18 months by the Biden administration, so they would have ended in July 2026, but now they will be terminated on Monday.

Harris lives in the Los Angeles area. The city’s Democratic mayor, Karen Bass, called Trump’s decision “another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation” and warned that it would endanger Harris. Bass said she plans to work with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a fellow Democrat, to ensure the former vice president’s safety, and she and Harris have already been in touch about the issue, according to a person with knowledge of the discussions.

While she lost to Trump last November, Harris is seen as a potential candidate for 2028, and she has already announced she will not run for California governor in 2026. Harris is also a former senator, California attorney general and San Francisco district attorney.

Last year was a particularly politically charged environment with Trump facing two assassination attempts, and the Secret Service played a crucial role in protecting the now-president. While questions remain about how the agency prepared for a July 2024 rally in Butler, Pa., a Secret Service counter sniper shot a gunman dead after he fired eight shots, killing an attendee, wounding two others and grazing Trump’s right ear. Trump chose one of the agents who rushed to the stage to shield him, Sean Curran, to lead the agency earlier this year.

The news of the security revocation was first reported by CNN.

Kim and Gomez Licon write for the Associated Press. Gomez Licon reported from Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris will receive protection from the California Highway Patrol after President Donald Trump revoked her Secret Service protection, law enforcement sources said Friday.

California officials put in place a plan to provide Harris with dignitary protection after President Trump ended an arrangement that gave his opponent in last year’s election extended Secret Service security coverage.

Trump signed a memorandum on Thursday ending Harris’s protection as of Monday, according to sources not authorized to discuss the security matter.

Former vice presidents usually get Secret Service protection for six months after leaving office, while ex-presidents get protection for life. But before his term ended, then-President Joe Biden signed an order to extend Harris’s protection beyond six months to July 2026. Aides to Harris had asked Biden for the extension. Without it, her security detail would have ended last month, according to sources.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who would need to sign off on such CHP protection, would not confirm the arrangement. “Our office does not comment on security arrangements,” said Izzy Gordon, a spokeswoman for Newsom. “The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.”

The decision came after Newsom’s office and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass were in discussions Thursday evening on how best to address the situation. Harris resides in the western portion of Los Angeles.

Bass in a statement, said “This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances and more. This puts the former Vice President in danger and I look forward to working with the governor to make sure Vice President Harris is safe in Los Angeles.”

The Secret Service, CHP and LAPD don’t discuss details of dignity protection in terms of deployment, numbers, and travel teams. CNN first reported the removal of Harris’s protection detail. Sources familiar with Harris’ security arrangements would not say how long the CHP would provide protection.

The curtailing of Secret Service protection comes as Harris is about to begin a book tour for her memoir, titled “107 Days.” The tour has 15 stops, which include visits to London and Toronto. The book, title references the short length of her presidential campaign. The tour begins next month.

Harris, the first Black woman to serve as vice president was the subject of an elevated threat level — particularly when she became the Democratic presidential contender last year. The Associated Press reports, however, a recent threat intelligence assessment by the Secret Service conducted on those it protects, such as Harris, found no red flags or credible evidence of a threat to the former vice president.

During his second term, President Trump stripped Secret Service protection from several one-time allies turned critics, including his former national security adviser John Bolton, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, both of whom have been targeted by Iran. In March, he ended Secret Service protection for former President Biden’s children — Hunter and Ashley Biden — who both had been granted extended protection by their father.

Harris’ predecessor, Vice President Mike Pence, did not have extended Secret Service protection beyond the standard six months.

Harris, a former senator, state attorney general and San Francisco district attorney, announced earlier this year she won’t seek to run for California governor in 2026.

During last year’s campaign, Trump faced two assassination attempts, including the July 2024 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where a Secret Service counter sniper shot a gunman dead after he fired eight shots, killing an attendee, wounding two others and grazing Trump’s right ear.

Times Staff Writer Melody Gutierrez and the Associated Press contributed to this story

WASHINGTON — The ghost of Jeffrey Epstein is back in Washington as Congress prepares to return for the fall.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson called an early start to summer break in July, attempting to shut down bipartisan clamor for the full release of the Epstein files. But Democrats are eager to launch back into a scandal that has dogged President Trump and divided his MAGA base.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, plans to partner with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky to quickly force a vote on the House floor ordering the Justice Department to release its entire trove of documents from the investigation of Epstein, a convicted sex offender who abused hundreds of women and girls.

The success of the measure is far from guaranteed. It is unclear whether the Justice Department would even abide by it. But Democrats plan to make sure the issue does not go away, regardless of its outcome, multiple Democratic aides said.

Democratic lawmakers’ focus on Epstein will be “high” out of the gate once Congress returns after Labor Day, one senior House Democratic staffer told The Times.

Republicans “will not want to be put in a position of voting against disclosure,” said the staffer, who requested anonymity to share internal discussions. “The same thing that tripped up Johnson in July is still there.”

California Dems lead charge for release

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) has pushed for the release of the Epstein documents.

(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

Epstein, a wealthy financier with a deep bench of powerful friends, died in a New York City prison in August 2019 facing federal charges in a sprawling child sex trafficking conspiracy.

The charges followed reporting by the Miami Herald of a scandalous sweetheart deal brokered by federal prosecutors in Florida that had allowed Epstein to serve a months-long sentence, avoiding federal charges that could have resulted in life imprisonment.

The chief prosecutor in that case, Alex Acosta, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, went on to serve as Labor secretary in Trump’s first term.

Acosta has agreed to sit for a transcribed interview with the House Oversight Committee on Sept. 19.

It is just one of several milestones coming up for the Oversight Committee, which voted to subpoena all Justice Department records in the case before dismissing for recess. Democrats, partnering with Republicans rebelling against the party line, forced the subpoena vote.

The first set of those documents were delivered last week. But Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the top Democrat on the committee, said that 97% of the 33,000 pages of documents handed over by the Justice Department so far were already public.

The Justice Department and the Oversight Committee said that the records would be released on a piecemeal basis as department officials work to redact sensitive information on Epstein’s victims.

Garcia and Khanna have been leading the charge for an expansive release of documents in the Epstein case — a call that has drawn fierce pushback from Trump, who had a close friendship with Epstein for roughly a decade.

“There is no excuse for incomplete disclosures,” Garcia said. “Survivors and the American public deserve the truth.”

‘Gentleman in all respects’

Democrats never made an issue of the Epstein files when they held Congress and the White House under President Biden, dismissing the story as another right-wing conspiracy theory. But Democratic lawmakers now see the issue as an opportunity to cause a split between Trump and his supporters, highlighting his resistance to releasing the files for a voter base that has called for their disclosure since Epstein’s 2019 death.

Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, chairman of the Oversight Committee, issued a new subpoena this week to Epstein’s estate for all material from 1990 through his death that references presidents and vice presidents, as well address books, contact lists, and videos recorded at Epstein’s properties.

That could result in the disclosure of a book compiled for Epstein marking his 50th birthday in the early 2000s, first reported over the summer by the Wall Street Journal, that allegedly includes a letter from Trump featuring a lewd doodle and a note that reads, “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.” Trump has denied he wrote the note.

The Oversight Committee has also voted to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s close associate who is serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse multiple minor girls.

Maxwell and her attorneys are openly angling for a pardon from Trump, raising suspicions among Democrats over the reliability of her testimony. But any appearance by Maxwell on Capitol Hill would become a media sensation, drawing national attention back to the case.

The second most powerful figure in the Justice Department, Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, personally interviewed Maxwell in July over the course of two days. She absolved Trump of any criminality in the interview without even being asked to do so.

“The president was never inappropriate with anybody,” Maxwell said, according to a transcript released last week.

“In the times I was with him,” she added, “he was a gentleman in all respects.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Why the Grateful Dead are one of California’s greatest natural phenomena
The deep dive: Will your congressional district shift left or right in Newsom’s proposed map?
The L.A. Times Special: Why COVID keeps roaring back every summer, even as pandemic fades from public view

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — There are “Wizard of Oz” echoes in the retaliatory redistricting fight being waged by California Democrats against President Trump and Texas Republicans.

That’s mainly because of the script being followed by Republican opponents. But Democrats seem to be parroting some Oz lines, too.

That was evident last week during several tense debates by California lawmakers on legislation setting a special state election for Nov. 4 to counteract Texas’ attempts to flip five congressional seats from Democrats to Republicans.

The California measures would temporarily suspend the state Constitution to allow legislators — rather than an independent citizens commission — to redraw U.S. House districts. The Democrats’ aim is to flip five Republican seats in California and neutralize the Texas GOP’s action. Democrats already have drawn the new lines, but voters must approve them.

At stake is control of the U.S. House of Representatives after next year’s midterm elections.

California’s Legislature, after much emotional rhetoric, easily passed the Democrats’ proposed constitutional amendment and supporting legislation on party-line, supermajority votes. The bills were immediately signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, their instigator and chief promoter. They’ll be Proposition 50 on the November ballot.

All the while, script lines from “The Wizard of Oz” movie classic kept ringing in my ears.

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,” the Wizard implores Dorothy and her pals after her little dog, Toto, pulls back the curtain to reveal him as a fraud.

In Sacramento, it’s as if Republicans — and progressive do-gooders — are being admonished to pay no attention to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who has committed the same sins of partisan redistricting that they’re attacking Newsom for. The Texan isn’t even mentioned by California assailants of Newsom’s gerrymandering. It smacks of hypocrisy.

What Abbott’s doing is even worse by good government standards. Unlike Newsom, he isn’t seeking voter approval.

Abbott doesn’t have to, of course. In Texas, it’s perfectly legal for the legislature to rig congressional districts for partisan advantage. In California, voters banned gerrymandering of congressional districts in 2010 and turned over their drawing to the bipartisan citizens commission. Newsom needs voter permission to suspend that law.

Nationally, Democrats need to gain only a handful of seats to capture control of the House and end the GOP’s one-party rule of Washington. Trump fears that likelihood. So he pressured Abbott into engineering a legislative gerrymandering of Texas’ House districts in mid-decade, rather than wait for the normal redrawing after the 2030 census. And he’s browbeating other red state governors to likewise rig their congressional lines.

“California will not be a bystander to Trump’s power grab,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Salinas) said as Newsom signed the legislation. “We will not stand by while the House is hijacked by authoritarianism.”

But back to the Emerald City.

The Wizard introduces himself to Dorothy by bellowing behind the curtain: “I am Oz, the great and powerful.” Later, he breaks his word to the girl, she sees through his bullying and stands up to him, scolding: “If you were really great and powerful, you’d keep your promises.”

Trump is a great big bully whose word can’t be taken at face value because he consistently changes his mind to fit the moment. He’s clearly anti-California, holding back federal funds, assessing fines and reducing environmental protections. Newsom and Democratic leaders will repeatedly remind voters of that as the election approaches.

Unlike Dorothy, it’s a rare Republican elected official who has the courage to stand up to this power-obsessed bully. But one surprisingly surfaced during the Assembly redistricting debate.

Referring to Trump’s urging Abbott and other GOP governors to gerrymander districts, Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher of Yuba City asserted: “He is wrong to do so.” And he added for emphasis: “Let me repeat. He is wrong…. Where does it end?”

Later, Gallagher reiterated, “My president is wrong on this point. What I don’t hear from the other side is, ‘My governor is wrong.’ ”

Gallagher and several Republicans insist — as Newsom and Democrats do — that gerrymandering should be outlawed in every state and district lines drawn by citizens’ commissions rather than self-interested legislators. But that won’t happen in the foreseeable future.

Gallagher also contended that Democrats are hyping Trump’s threat to democracy. He said they’re arguing that “in order to save democracy, we must undermine it” by committing sleazy gerrymandering.

He has a point about the Democrats’ excessive warning of democracy’s peril under Trump.

“Californians won’t stand by while Donald Trump destroys democracy,” Sen. Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) declared during an oft-uncivil hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee. “If we let Trump get away with this rigging of elections, then we may not have free and fair elections in the future.”

That seems a stretch.

This and other hyperbole by several legislators of both parties reminded me of frightened Dorothy, Tin Man and Scarecrow chanting in the dark forest: “Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!”

I suspect the best pitch for Proposition 50 in this heavily Democratic state is a straight-forward anti-Trump message focused on his inhuman policies and the urgent need to restore checks and balances in Washington.

“We are going to punch this bully in the mouth,” Newsom vowed during a press conference hosted by the Democratic National Committee.

OK, but the governor should cool the Trump-like rhetoric. It probably wouldn’t impress Dorothy or — more important — her Uncle Henry and Aunt Em.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Most California voters disapprove of Trump’s immigration enforcement policies, poll shows
The TK: The Supreme Court could give immigration agents broad power to stop and question Latinos
The L.A. Times Special: This red state fears Californians bringing ‘radical, leftist ideology.’ It’s targeting teachers

Until next week,
George Skelton

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