Tag: Gavin Newsom

By on

The problem with nuanced explanations about emotionally charged situations is that people are getting pretty worked about it. People are seeing violence on the streets of Los Angeles. Saying things like we are handling the situation, the protesters are mostly peaceful, the president is breaking all historical protocol on how these situations are handled is fine when people are discussing budget deficits. It is all together a different story when you have rioters on the streets. The only appropriate answer is this is a big problem and we welcome all the help we can get.

Unfortunately the ever crafty Donald Trump doesn’t do nuance while Gavin Newsom can’t stop himself from trying to explain the unexplainable. Yes, this is a shit sandwich but it isn’t a lot of shit and we can get rid of shit if the President would only leave us alone to do our jobs. Don’t get me wrong, Newsom is absolutely right but sometimes being right doesn’t stop someone from looking ineffective in a dangerous situation.

Some of the protesters have gone over the line. Yes Trump provoked it and this certainly needs to be said but not by a man who has rioters loose in his state. Other people can point that out. Newsom needs to blunt an effective attack on his competence.

Admittedly Newsom is in a difficult situation. Trump is taking advantage of a situation he created. This doesn’t matter when police are under attack and cars are being set on fire. Newsom is already, somewhat undeservedly, trying to remove the egg from his face based on the January fires that devastated portions of the city. He does’t need more damage to his competence.

Middle-class people disapprove of rioting. They also have a tendency to vote. They might prefer, no matter how much they hate the man, a person who says this is wrong, the people who should take care of it aren’t taking care of it and I will take care of it as a better person for the job over someone giving a nuanced explanation of why there are rioters in his state and why he doesn’t need the President’s help.

So maybe, for the time being, a better plan would be to say I welcome the President’s help in getting this situation under control and immediately try to start working with Trump on containing the violence. This gives Trump some impetus to work with Newsom on resolving the problem.

Plus it might make things awkward for Trump who would then be forced to work with local authorities on a town they know well. If he preferred to go it alone. Newsom can say he tried to work with Trump but his assistance was declined. Thus, if things go South, and given Trump and his cronies penchant for going off half-cocked about things, it would probably go South pretty fast without the co-operation of Newsom and local authorities, then Trump would be holding the shit sandwich while Newsom could shrug his shoulders and say he tried.

There is a potential for blood in the streets because Trump and his cronies seem to be looking for a way to assert control. Unfortunately the potential for blood is already there. I don’t know about you but it sounds really dangerous for two different armed groups independently trying to put down a small riot than to have one co-ordinated force. Worse still it would be Democrat fighting Republican in the streets.

No doubt, this wouldn’t be a win for Newsom but it certainly would be better for him than looking like an incompetent ninny.

By on

I am a bit peevish about all the wonderful things people are saying about Sen. Feinstein. On one hand, I get it. Hell, I voted for her every time she ran. I think she did an outstanding job for most of her career however the past few years she has been in bad health and she couldn’t give 100% to the job she was elected to do and there was little hope that her health would improve enough to change this circumstance. Instead of recognizing that it was time to go, she needlessly clung to power.

This is the only reason I can see for her continuing. Gavin Newsom, the California governor and a Democrat, would appoint her successor so there was no worry about turning the seat over to a Republican which would have been, at least, a reasonable concern in a divided Senate. Then, I can see holding onto her seat. So when she realized that she wasn’t up for the job any more, the right thing to do was to resign and make way for someone who could.

If she was unable or unwilling to surrender her seat, then people who care about her or colleagues who might influence her, should have interceded. There are all these excuses. Nobody wants to tell an esteemed colleague that her time has past and that she needs to retire. It would be a difficult conversation. I personally would hate to have such a conversation.

But, then, this is part of the vetting process called elections. People demonstrate their abilities and their positions and the public must decide which person can best represent their interests. One of the perennial abilities that candidates make is their ability to make difficult decisions. This is a fundamental part of the job description for people running for public office. So let me see you make difficult decisions.

Feinstein’s Democratic colleagues were remarkably mum when confronted with Feinstein’s fitness for her job. Which is disappointing. This was a difficult conversation yes but since there were very low stakes in the decision. There was going to be a Democratic replacement and there is a way to say Feinstein had done a fine job but isn’t up to the demands of such a position any more. Now, she may have ignored this advice but at least they would be on record at saying someone should be fit enough to continue in office.

By keeping their mouths shut, these titans of democracy don’t exactly leave me with the impression that they can make difficult decisions. This is concerning, particularly, since there are so many difficult decisions to make.