California GOP is Incompetent

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I want to talk about the loss of Prop fifty.
The Democrat romp with Prop fifty, which passed sixty five
to thirty five, just a devastating stomp and is now
you know, thanks, you know, it's a good thing that

(00:22):
California Republicans and David Tonggapa is the lead plaintiff in
the case, or one of the lead plaintiffs in the case.
They are now challenging Proposition fifty in court. But I
want to I want to address this question of Look,
California Republicans have a hard time, a real uphill battle

(00:45):
winning anything, and.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
A lot of it is just here we are. It's
twenty twenty five.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
California Republicans don't constitute a majority of the state. They
just don't. Twenty twenty five is is a bad year
for Republicans. We saw it across the country and I
think one of the big takeaways from Tuesday's election. One
of the takeaways from Tuesday's election might be affordability. You know,

(01:18):
why did Kamala Harris lose in twenty twenty four, Well,
everything's not Nothing is affordable, Prices go up, inflation is high,
et cetera. Trump comes in under this mandate two end
high prices twenty twenty five rolls around. There's not you know,
I think the rate of inflation has slowed, but it's

(01:40):
not like anything has become cheaper. In comes Zoron Mamdani
in New York City on this grand affordability platform where
he's gonna say, oh, let's just do you know, price
controls on rent in this and bubblo the free grocery store,
free stud you know, promising all this free stuff on

(02:00):
the backs of millionaire and billionaire New Yorkers who have
the means and wherewithal and now the motive to leave
the state. Now, watch is these idiots flee to Florida
and then start voting for Democrats in Florida. So I
think affordability is this huge problem. And Trump's numbers right

(02:24):
now on the economy are not very good. Okay, he's
pulling worse on economic issues right now than he has
at any time. And it's a real warning for twenty
twenty six, frankly. But anyway, regardless, California, California has this election,
it's a kind of a perfect year for Democrats. Trump

(02:47):
has accomplished a lot of stuff in the last year.
A lot of stuff that maybe for Democrat voters, is
not going to ingratiate him, ingratiate him to them.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
California already did not really like Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
The ice raids on illegal immigrants, I don't you know.
Obviously that's what Trump people voted for. It's not what
California voted for. So that's not making Trump more popular
in California, and so it was not a good year
for Republicans to be participating in an election. Nonetheless, there's

(03:28):
a lot about how the Republican Party in California has
operated that.

Speaker 2 (03:36):
Is not super impressive.

Speaker 1 (03:39):
Carl Demayo, who is a California State Assembly member, California
State Assembly member. He's a guy who's been pushing for
voter ID stuff. I think he's got a statewide ballot
initiative he's trying to qualify. He's a member of the
state Assembly. He and David Tung have done a lot

(04:02):
of initiatives together. Demayo tweets out this thing, which is
kind of stunning. He tweets out something from a gal
in Orange County. She writes, Hey, Carl, I don't know

(04:22):
exactly what's going on, but I just received this in
the mail today on November sixth, so yesterday, two days
after the election here in Orange County. I'm surprised they
even bothered to deliver. How often are these just getting
completely discarded? And it was two different pieces of voter mail,

(04:44):
two different anti Prop fifty mail pieces from the California GOP.
So California GOP apparently spent mo on no on Prop
fifty literature that was arriving in people's mailboxes two days

(05:06):
after election day. I e too late, and DeMaio writes
more incompetence from the California GOP, they're junk mail arriving
after the election is over. I reiterate my call for
the party chair to resign on the board to do

(05:26):
its job to overhaul things before November of twenty twenty six.

Speaker 2 (05:34):
Pretty tough, pretty tough words. I think that's a good
Donald Trump A. It's very tough.

Speaker 1 (05:41):
He's very tough, you know, tough, very very strong, very tough,
very powerful, powerful. That's that's another good Trump adjectate. Now
there are other stories to indicate sort of the incompetence
of cal for New Republicans with regards to this Prop

(06:03):
fifty campaign. There's a big story in Axios about this.
The GOP blame game is on as pushed to stop
California redistricting fates. Now, this was actually published like a
day or two before the election, so this is sort
of a focus on the fundraising side of it. How

(06:24):
Kevin McCarthy was heavily involved in the fundraising on the
No On Prop fifty campaign. Kevin McCarthy, former Speaker of
the House of Representatives, former congressman representing the Bakersfield area
slash Clovis McCarthy was working on fundraising for the No

(06:45):
On fifty campaign. Charles Munger Junior, who's the son of
one of Warren Buffet's big business partners, he was contributing
a lot of money to this. He had I think
he had contributed to Arnold Schwarzenegger's original ballot initiative efforts

(07:07):
to invent the California Independent Citizen Redistricting Commission.

Speaker 2 (07:15):
But there was.

Speaker 1 (07:15):
Woman who was the head of a kind of Trump
affiliated pack who had some kind of big meeting with
California based donors in Washington, d C. In which she
told them. I think this was around sort of around
mid year, might have been around August September that now

(07:35):
looks like it's going to pass. And this immediately cooled
off a ton of big fundraisers for the NO side,
a lot of Republican donors for the no side, and
you could see the results of this. The No side
just simply did not have as much money as the
S side. Anyone who was watching football or the World

(07:57):
Series over the course of the past two months saw,
i mean countless yes on fifty ads, and I'd say
in the last week or two of the elections, I'd
say it was I don't know, twenty to one for

(08:19):
yes on fifty ads versus no on fifty ads. Twenty
yes on fifty ads for no on. A few days
before the election, my wife and I we just had
our new baby, little Cecilia Girardi, and.

Speaker 2 (08:31):
We're at home.

Speaker 1 (08:32):
The other kids are in bed, Holly's, you know, we're
up with the baby, and we turn on TV Land
and we're watching Seinfeld rerun, a Seinfeld rerun, as we do,
seinfeld'ser favorite show. And during the Seinfeld rerun commercials, they
got a no on fifty ad and we're like, oh, okay,
no onfit Now it's not the the yes, the no

(08:53):
on fifty ads. They managed to make it in on
TV Land during a commercial break.

Speaker 2 (09:00):
During a Seinfeld rerun.

Speaker 1 (09:02):
Not during the commercial breaks for Game seven of the
World Series where the Dodgers are playing. You know where
the Dodgers are, you know, achieving, you know, one of
the one of the great World Series wins in the
history of the sport.

Speaker 2 (09:14):
No, no, no, no where you know they absolutely crushed it
in the ratings.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
No no, no, no, no, no, no, no on fifty
ads during the World Series. No no on fifty ads
during you know, one of the big college football.

Speaker 2 (09:26):
Games on Saturday.

Speaker 1 (09:27):
No, no on fifty ads during the Sunday NFL games
or Sunday Night football.

Speaker 2 (09:31):
No, but we got we got.

Speaker 1 (09:33):
A no on fifty ad for all of the late
night TV Land Seinfeld rerun watchers. Great job, guys, And
the obviously reason why is money. Money wins California elections.

Speaker 2 (09:48):
They just do.

Speaker 1 (09:49):
Okay, California elections are won and lost on the basis
of money. Do you have enough money to pay for
ads in the Los Angeles media market, which is crazy expensive.
If you've got that money, you win. If you don't
have that money, you lose. And the fact that we
were getting carpet bombed in Fresno with yes on fifty ds.
It means god knows, you know, obviously I'm not watching

(10:11):
TV in La. They must have been getting absolutely even
more carpet bombed down there, all right, So it seems
like California Republicans bungled the It seems like California Republicans
bungled the money side of things. It seems like the

(10:34):
California GOP was bungling the get out the vote efforts.
I mean, here we got, you know, junk mail arriving
two days after election day telling people to get out
and vote. And there is this persistent Republican problem that
was mainlined into Republican brains as a result of the

(10:57):
twenty twenty election that Democrats are cheating with vote by mail.
Democrats are cheating with all methods of voting other than
voting in person the day of. And while that might
have happened maybe in some places or at the very least,
I think it's I think this is more realistically what happens.

(11:20):
Democrats realize that they could, in various places like California,
leverage their institutional advantages, their larger get out the vote organization,
the participation of all the labor unions, et cetera. If
they had more and more varied loosey goosey methods for

(11:43):
ballot harvesting and things like that, California Democrats could use
all these methods to help them more effectively get out
the vote. I think that is much more than case
of what's happening. Then all the Republican mail in ballots

(12:03):
are thrown in the garbage can and all of the
Democrat mail in ballots get counted three times. California Democrats
like these loosened systems because they have these big institutional advantages.
I don't think it's so much because of open fraud.
I mean, probably there's some fraud happening somewhere, you know,

(12:26):
whether it's decisive or not.

Speaker 2 (12:29):
I mean, the thing is that fraud.

Speaker 1 (12:31):
It we have a system with like kind of built
in mechanisms for cheating the whole ballot curing system that
we have in California, where after the fact, if you
mailed in your ballot in a way where you had
some sort of error with how you sent it in,
you have, like between election day and when California certifies

(12:55):
the election, which is not for like a month, you
can go out and cure your ballot and Democrats having
a much bigger apparatus, a much bigger political apparatus, get
out the vote apparatus, et cetera, they have much more
ability to cure votes after election day than Republicans do.
So any election that's close, Democrats can win it on

(13:15):
the basis of ballot curing. They Adam Gray has his
seat in the House of Representatives.

Speaker 2 (13:23):
Because of that.

Speaker 1 (13:27):
So nonetheless, what is clear is if your party really
aggressively utilizes vote by mail, voting early, all the mechanisms
that are there, you get out more votes and you

(13:48):
do better. And California Republicans are still like that. They're
still in this like twenty twenty mindset where like, oh no,
this is bad as all wringing your hands and aggizing
over what form of voting you should do as opposed
to just voting, and it results in Republicans just having
worse turnout, Like a lot of Republicans just did not vote.

(14:13):
They either forgot, they didn't make a plan, they delayed.
And Democrats are all just like boop. As soon as
they get their vote by mail, ballot, get it, fill
it out, put it in an envelope, drop it off
at a ballot harvesting place, drop it off at a box,
put a stamp on it, send it in the mail.

Speaker 2 (14:32):
Like boo boo boo, boo boop. No, not a qualm.

Speaker 1 (14:35):
They don't care, they have they have no fear, no
qualms about it, and they turn out their people better.
And you've got Republicans throughout the state or just furious
at how much better Democrats are at this than Republicans are.

Speaker 2 (14:56):
And I don't know what it's gonna take.

Speaker 1 (14:58):
I don't I don't know if it's it's gonna take
sort of see change on this. I think President Trump,
I think President Trump's complaints after the twenty twenty election
have put these sort of brain worms in Republican brains
that are just not going away, because I mean, when
Republicans actually do utilize these tools really effectively, really aggressively,

(15:22):
they do better.

Speaker 2 (15:22):
They do well. Now when we return, I want to
talk about how are we gonna fix this in California.

Speaker 1 (15:33):
And how I feel like that's the wrong kind of
framing for these questions. That's next on the John Girardi Show.
I keep getting asked by people what's gonna take to
turn around California.

Speaker 2 (15:48):
How are we gonna fix California. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (15:54):
That's my very unsatisfactory answer. I don't know, but I hear.
There are a couple of things I do know. I
think Republicans in California vacillate wildly in a lot of
different ways. The one idea is there are some Republicans
who think if we didn't have all the cheating, Republicans

(16:16):
would win.

Speaker 2 (16:19):
No.

Speaker 1 (16:22):
No, we lost Prop fifty sixty five to thirty five.
Kamala Harris beat Donald Trump by twenty points. You know
how many votes are represented in California? By twenty points,
we're talking like, I don't know, it might be over
a million votes. That gap isn't made up by Democrats

(16:44):
just cheating. Okay, they're kicking our butts. They've got more people.
Republicans have been bleeding votes for decades. There are I
think at this point, there are more people who idy
as no party preference then there are Republicans, which, especially

(17:06):
if you're kind of a disaffected Republican, there's almost no
reason to actually register yourself as a Republican other than
the ability to vote in presidential primaries, which, by the
time California votes in a presidential primary.

Speaker 2 (17:20):
Usually it's the whole matter is already decided.

Speaker 1 (17:24):
So I do think there's a decent number of Republicans
in California who I'm not there are Republican parties, just
a bunch of morons, and then they register as no
party preference. We're bleeding voters. And there's also this sort
of phenomenon that for all of Donald Trump's success electoral

(17:52):
success nationally, the twenty twenty four victory was incredibly impressive
and incredibly impressive in a lot of ways, gaining ground
with Hispanic voters, gaining ground with African American voters, gaining
ground with mail voters, with young mail voters.

Speaker 2 (18:08):
A lot of that is not playing in California. It
just isn't.

Speaker 1 (18:14):
California is pretty much the same percentage wise voting against
Donald Trump in twenty twenty four as in twenty twenty
as in twenty sixteen. Trump did a little better in
twenty twenty four. A lot of different counties of California
he did much better. He won Fresno County in twenty

(18:37):
twenty four for the first time, but still he lost
by twenty points. Trump had thirty eight percent of the
vote Harris had fifty eight percent of the vote. And
how did the Democrats win the Prop fifty campaign, Well,
they made it a referendum against Donald Trump. Trump was
front and center in every single television ad. It's Donald

(18:59):
Trump's attempt to jeopardize our democracy by redistricting in Texas.

Speaker 2 (19:04):
No, Greg Abbott was not the villain.

Speaker 1 (19:08):
The Republican legislators in Texas and Indiana who are doing
in Missouri, who are doing redistricting, they were not the villains.
The villain was Donald Trump and Democrats one ran a
very effective campaign by making Donald Trump front and center.
So it's sort of this two edged sword where Trump
has resulted in two presidential victories for Republicans nationally, but

(19:35):
not for Republicans in California. He Trump remains quite unpopular
in California. He's probably more unpopular in California today than
he was a year ago at the twenty twenty four elections.
So and that just dogs Trump's presence dogs Republicans kinds

(20:00):
of ways, because you know, actually it's this sort of
weird thing how Republicans have done badly in every off
year election where Trump's around, but he's not directly on
the ballot. Republicans didn't do well in twenty eighteen, they
didn't do well in twenty twenty two, and I'm afraid

(20:23):
they're not going to do well in twenty twenty six.

Speaker 2 (20:27):
Why because the only because.

Speaker 1 (20:30):
A lot of sort of marginal Republican voters, they only
come out for Trump. They don't really care for other Republicans.
They just like Trump, even very trumpy Republicans, guys like
Blake Masters and Carry Lake in Arizona. Well, Trump won
Arizona by a big shift. Carry Lake and Blake Masters,

(20:52):
all those people. They can't They couldn't win statewide office
in Arizona. But what about cheating, Well, it's not like
they cheated more against Kerry Lake and Blake Masters than
they did against Trump in the twenty twenty four election.
If they were gonna cheat, they were gonna cheat against Trump.
So and it's just undeniable. Trump gets out the vote

(21:18):
for other people, not that much. He gets out the
vote for himself. And I'm not saying that like Trump
is selfish. He's keeping all the votes for himself. Trump
voters just aren't as motivated to vote for any person
whose name isn't Trump.

Speaker 2 (21:34):
So it's this.

Speaker 1 (21:36):
Weird thing where I almost feel like a less trumpy
Republican party nationally might do better in California, if that's
if that makes any sense, it might do worse nationally,
but it might do better in California. In short, I
don't know that there's a great long term solution. I

(21:57):
think one there needs to be much better leadership among
California Republicans.

Speaker 2 (22:04):
There clearly isn't.

Speaker 1 (22:05):
There's tons of infighting, there's a lack of organization, there's
a lack of competence, seemingly a lack of competence, I guess.
I mean when you've got the few members left of
the State Assembly calling for in Carl Demyo seems like
a fairly effective Republican legislator who is calling for the

(22:25):
state GOP chair to get canned. And it seems like
there's this phenomenon where a lot of these candidates for
the Assembly, for the state Senate, for Congress who are Republicans,
they're at a point where they don't really rely on
the state GOP or county level GOP for much of anything.

(22:47):
They have to run their own operations, which I'm not
sure if that's the situation in other states.

Speaker 2 (22:57):
Or on the Democrats side of it.

Speaker 1 (23:01):
So I think we have to think of the prospect
of reddening California as more of a twenty year project
rather than a the next election idea, because we're in
terrible shape and it's not going to get better without

(23:21):
long term shifts, long term cultural, demographic, political shifts. Now,
a lot can change over one election, but we've been
saying that for the last twelve years and nothing's changed. Okay,
we've had We're going to be going on sixteen years

(23:42):
of Democrat governors about as much that much time of
Democrats having a super majority in the state legislature.

Speaker 2 (23:51):
And every state wide office.

Speaker 1 (23:53):
So we're in a bad shape, and I don't think
it's something that can get changed overnight when we return,
when we return the lawsuit to stop Prop fifty that's
next on the John Girardi Show. Will Prop fifty make it?

(24:13):
Will Prop fifty actually survive? Will Prop fifty actually result
in the new redistricting lines being applied? This is the
question that arises from the lawsuit filed by David Togapa
and others in federal court. They are arguing that the

(24:34):
new redistricting lines proposed by Prop fifty that these redistricting
lines violate certain provisions of the Constitution because why because
they use race in order to draw their jerry manderd
redistricting lines. Now, let's discuss what this is, because this

(24:57):
is a big issue that the Supreme Court is looking
at right now. Now, basically, here's what's going on. Back
in sort of post reconstruction days as there was so
you had the Civil War, you had Reconstruction where Republicans

(25:18):
were sort of overseeing the Southern States, and during this
early post Civil War period you actually had a very
dominant Republican party in the South. A lot of the
Southern politicians were disqualified from holding office because they had
been part of the Confederacy, disqualified by the fourteenth Amendment.

(25:39):
And you started seeing African Americans voting for the first time,
and a lot of the first African American representatives in
Congress came from the South. In this timeframe, Well, that
all flipped pretty quick. White Southerners started different kinds of
movements like the Ku Klux Klan. Part of who's in

(26:00):
work was to intimidate black people and terrorize them into
not voting, and Democrats became once again the dominant power
in Southern politics, and you didn't see African Americans getting
elected from the South for a good while, and they

(26:22):
would impose all kinds of unfair There were all kinds
of unfair things that were being done to African Americans
in this timeframe through the Civil Rights era, and when
in the Civil Rights.

Speaker 2 (26:32):
Era of the nineteen fifties through.

Speaker 1 (26:34):
The sixties, a lot of positive reforms were made to
make society more fair for African Americans, getting rid of
Jim Crow laws regarding the participation of African Americans in society,
like no, your business isn't allowed to say we're only
serving white people.

Speaker 2 (26:55):
No, your business is not allowed to do that.

Speaker 1 (26:57):
The whole concept of the Civil Rights Act is, in
this context or in that context, an employer or a
business operator, or the government or this or that cannot
discriminate on the basis of And then you'd have a
list of the different categories on the basis of which
you're not allowed to discriminate race in certain context, not

(27:21):
all contexts, sex, national origin, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, religion,
And so the passage of these laws got rid of
all of these ways in which African Americans in the
South were enormously hindered from participating in life. The example

(27:45):
I always bring up is this thing called the Green Book,
which was made into a movie with Big o' mortensen
and Herschela Ali. The Green Book was this travel guide
for African Americans traveling through the South, where basically it
was this travel guide to say, Okay, this hotel, this hotel,
this restaurant, this hotel. If you're in the Mobile, Alabama area, you.

Speaker 2 (28:08):
Can stay at this hotel, this hotel.

Speaker 1 (28:10):
This is.

Speaker 2 (28:10):
You can't stay at this hotel, this hotel, this hotel.

Speaker 1 (28:12):
You go to this restaurant, this restort is you can't
go to this restaurant, this restaurant, this restaurant. And that
was one of the grave injustices of the Jim Crow era.
Was like, all of these very basic services that everyone
needs to use, like hotels and restaurants and grocery stores,

(28:33):
the things that you need just to eat and to travel,
a lot of them were just closed off to African
Americans for no reason other than the color of their skin.
So that was a real grave injustice that was corrected.
One of the things that was done in the South

(28:57):
to one of the things that was done in the
South to sort of disadvantage African Americans. Where again, you
remember you had this history of after the Civil War
you started seeing African Americans getting elected, going to Congress,
et cetera. Redistricting was sometimes used in those time frames

(29:17):
as a tool for denying any kind of power to
African Americans. So what would you do. Well, you could
do all kinds of sort of devious things like let's
say there's a kind of large African American community within
a city, and so instead of having you know, congressional districts,

(29:41):
that a couple of congressional districts that have sizeable representations
of African Americans where African Americans could win elections, or
or where African Americans concerns and the concerns among people
were much more drawn along racial lines, I would argue
in those days than today, Basically you could if you

(30:04):
drew redistricting lines sort of fairly and kept together you know,
communities of interest if you will, that's sort of the
term of art.

Speaker 2 (30:15):
It would give African Americans a decent amount of power.
What people would do.

Speaker 1 (30:19):
Instead is various forms of gerrymandering where let's say you
have one large African American community and you split it
up into like twelve different pizza slices, where this one
African American community, all of a sudden is divided up
into twelve different congressional districts, in none of which do

(30:43):
African Americans have any shred of power.

Speaker 2 (30:46):
Or if that's not feasible.

Speaker 1 (30:49):
Maybe you do something like you you create one weirdly
shaped districts where you shove all the African Americans practically
in the whole state into one congressional district and then
none of the other congressional districts basically we have any
African Americans whatsoever. So people were doing redistricting in this
very obviously race conscious fashion, and the difficulty was that,

(31:16):
you know, the difficulty was that, for the most part,
redistricting has always been viewed as a political question, not
a question for adjudication by other branches of government like
the courts. So it was something very firmly in control
of the state legislatures. State legislatures did redistricting. That's the

(31:39):
normative way. It's still the normative way in which redistricting
is done. California is a little weird with its citizens
redistricting Commission. Most states just every ten years after the census.
So if the census is in twenty twenty, then after
twenty twenty you do your redistricting and the new lines apply.

(32:00):
In twenty twenty two or twenty ten, they did the census,
the new lines supplied in twenty twelve, et cetera, et cetera,
every year on the ten Now, basically, the country was
horrified at this whole legacy of racism, and one of

(32:22):
the things they passed was this thing called the Voting
Rights Act. And one of the things the Voting Rights
Act did was it sort of mandated that that kind
of diminution of an ethnic minorities political power not take place.
The problem is that in twenty twenty five, we live
in a much different world than we did in nineteen

(32:46):
oh five. In twenty twenty five, what's really happening, Well,
Democrats and Republicans are drawing these lines, not because of
any concern about the color of anybody's skin. That's not
what anyone's trying to do. No one's trying to deny

(33:07):
power to African Americans. No one wants to deny the
interests of this group. That it's purely a question of politics.
Republicans want more Republican seats and Democrats want more Democrats seats.
That's what's really happening. The problem with the Voting Rights
Act is that actually, in order to combat racial jerrymandering,

(33:33):
it actually requires you to not split up different kinds
of ethnic enclaves or racial communities. It requires you to
not be colorblind. And I color blindness not discriminating, not
considering race is as much as liberals don't like it,

(33:56):
as much as people in left wing legal academia hate it,
as much as it we don't.

Speaker 2 (34:00):
Live in a colorblind society. People are conscious of color.

Speaker 1 (34:02):
It's not you've to think, Okay, say that all you want.
I think though, and I don't think I'm out on
a limb. I think it's the most logical reading of
American law, the various post the various Civil Rights Act statutes,
the various Civil Rights Acts, and the equal protection clause

(34:26):
of the Fourteenth Amendment. I think the most obvious reading
of those texts is we're supposed to have a colorblind society.
The government just isn't supposed to take race into consideration.
And the only way that you can adjudicate well Republicans.
You know, Republicans in redistricting, they disadvantage black people. Therefore,

(34:48):
we need to draw new district lines with this new
conscious focus on protecting racial enclaves. So we're we go
from discriminating on the basis of race to discriminating on
the basis of race, and the Voting Rights Act basically
mandates that you discriminate on the basis of race. The

(35:13):
Voting Rights Act has been as specifically, the interpretation of
one section of it has been basically weaponized by Democrats
to help them get more congressional seats. So right now
this issue is gonna come before the Supreme Court, and

(35:35):
the Supreme Court is probably going to rule on it
this year, and if they do, I don't know how
these new redistricting lines that the Democrats put together are
going to work because they were all made with the
Voting Rights Act restrictions in mind of having to maintain
ethnic enclaves, and especially like those requirements of the Voting

(35:59):
Right become just farcical when you're talking about modern day California,
where minority racial minorities are the majority in the state.
You couldn't diminish Latino electoral power if you wanted to,
it would be impossible to do. I'm not sure if
there's more Latinos now in California than just whites, I mean.

Speaker 2 (36:26):
The whole.

Speaker 1 (36:26):
I'm certain that minorities are now the majority of people
in California.

Speaker 2 (36:30):
People sorry, going through puberty on the radio.

Speaker 1 (36:33):
So I think the Supreme Court is going to look
very dimly at the use of the Voting Rights Act
to strike down maps where Republicans are just trying to
do things that are advantageous to Republicans, and Democrats say, you're.

Speaker 3 (36:49):
Diminishing the electoral power of minorities, as if all Latinos
think the same, as if all African Americans even think
the same, which I don't think they do when we return.

Speaker 2 (37:01):
When we return.

Speaker 1 (37:02):
A brief thought on Republicans getting rid of the philibuster,
something President Trump is advocating for right now.

Speaker 2 (37:09):
That's next on the John Girardi Show, President Trump.

Speaker 1 (37:13):
As the government shut down has dragged on and on
and on and on, President Trump keeps saying that Republicans
in the Senate should get rid of the filibuster rule
and should use it to open the government and then
pass all the great Republican policies that we want to
have passed.

Speaker 2 (37:30):
Now. One thing that annoyed me when he tweeted.

Speaker 1 (37:32):
About this or he sent out a truth social post
about it, he didn't say anything about limiting abortion, which
annoys me.

Speaker 2 (37:40):
Nonetheless, here's the problem.

Speaker 1 (37:42):
If Democrats abolished the filibuster, they would pass nationwide legal abortion,
they would pack the Supreme Court, they would add three
new Democrat states and six new Democrat senators to entrench
themselves in power forever. If Republicans get rid of the philibuster,
they're not going to do nearly much, and they won't
do anything to entrench themselves in power either, and they

(38:04):
won't do anything to limit abortion.

Speaker 2 (38:06):
I bet so.

Speaker 1 (38:09):
I don't knowing that the Republicans won't actually do anything
really effective long term by getting rid of the filibuster.

Speaker 2 (38:15):
I'd rather it stay.

Speaker 1 (38:16):
I'd rather it stay than Republicans do it and then
not accomplish anything that'll do it. John Jerrody Show, See
you next time on Power Talk