Can Trump & Newsom Cooperate on Forest Management?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So I've got this ongoing thesis that I'm going to
keep carrying with me for the next couple of years,
say over the next four years. California is in such
bad shape on so many fronts because of liberal policy
preferences that have been carried by two straight governors, two

(00:23):
straight two term governors, plus a super majority Democrat controlled legislature,
plus the entire bureaucratic executive bureaucracy completely dominated by Democrats.
They have so thoroughly dominated our public policy that and

(00:49):
their domination of our public policy has led to so
much so many of the problems we see in California
from wildfires, too, high cost of living, high cost of energy,
high cost of housing, high cost of this, high cost
of that, blah blah blah, blah blah. We are at

(01:10):
such a critically bad point dependent on such a small
number of taxpayers, so many of whom are fleeing the state,
which is wrecking havoc on our budgetary situation where we
could be up to like a ten billion dollar budget
deficit in California, which is no joke. We are in
such bad shape that Democrats will be forced over the

(01:36):
next four years to abandon some of their worst, stupidest policies,
and they will then try to position themselves as heroes
of moderation for having done so, and then they will
proceed to tear their rotator cuffs patting themselves on the back.
So watch out for that over the next four years

(01:58):
of Democrats doing these insane sort of like switch switch
around turnarounds on public policy decisions they made which have
been spectacular failures, and then demanding all the credit for it.
You've already sort of started to see Gavin Newsom do this,

(02:20):
although frankly, it's not going to be very credible seven
years into eight years as governor for Gavin to switch
course on too many things, and that's ultimately I think
that's going to be his achilles heel when it comes
to him trying to run for president, is that everyone's
gonna look at him and be like, really, you stuck
with this high speed rail thing this whole time, and

(02:42):
there's still not one inch of operable track. You had
eight years to work on high speed rail, it didn't happen.
You had, you know, seven years to work on forest management.
You knew wildfires were a huge problem, and you know
a big chunk of Los Angeles burned down. You, et cetera,
et cetera. You know you've been saying you're going to

(03:02):
tackle homelessness for the last eight sixteen twenty three, For
twenty three years, basically seven years as mayor of San Francisco,
eight years as lieutenant governor. I guess twenty two years.
We're seven years into his governorship. You've been saying that
you're going to do to do what it takes to
counter homelessness, and if anything, the problem's worse than it was.

(03:25):
And California spent billions and billions and billions of dollars
on homelessness that seems to have actually resulted in no
positive changes whatsoever. So Newsome is going to have a
hard time because California is in such terrible shape. He's
going to have a hard time positioning himself as any

(03:45):
kind of an innovative, out of the box successful leader
come twenty twenty eight. However, he is going to try.
And this story or this opinion piece from the President Bee,
is there common ground for Gavin Newsom and Donald Trump?
On Forestreet, Timber. It's a piece written by Tom philp

(04:14):
from the Sacramento Bee. He writes in California Governor Gavin
Newsom wants to cut down lots of little trees for
fire protection. President Donald Trump wants loggers to cut down
bigger California trees for lumber. Between these two oft warring leaders,
is there a policy marriage of sorts in the woods?

(04:37):
At first blash, the answer appears to be yes. The
governor wants to reduce the fire dangers on a million
California acres a year. The President wants to increase timber
harvest by twenty five percent on the state's national forests.
On paper, these two agendas are entirely compatible. But it's
one thing to order more trees to fall in a
national forest. It's another to plan for large scale forestry operations,

(05:01):
which take staff, which takes staff and time. Trump's team
so far has shown more interest in cutting forestry staffing
in California than cutting down trees, and that may stall
any real changes on the ground, despite an executive order
signed by the President demanding action. This is silly. Yeah,

(05:24):
maybe the President doesn't want the existing load of employees
who work for the national forests and would prefer a
different burden of employees to work for the national forests
focused on different kinds of things. Let's fire all those employees,
by the way, who work for Yosemite who decided unclear

(05:45):
whether this was our taxpayer dollars paying them to do this,
who hung an upside down American flag off of half Dome.
Do you guys remember that back in like February.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
And the media was just oh yeah, se many employees
express their distress by flying an upside down American flag
off of half Dome to show their distress with the
president's decision to cut staffing.

Speaker 1 (06:10):
Which was maybe the best argument possible that President Trump
should be firing those people. If they've got enough time
to get a massive American flag up on top of
half Dome and fly it upside down? Did they do
that on government work time? Did they get access to

(06:34):
half Dome in that way because they are government employees? Really,
you're allowed to protest your work while you're at work,
while you're being paid at work. Is that the way
this works in America? With American government, with government work,
with public service. Now, I should let Mindy Casto know

(06:56):
that that maybe she should let some police officers go
to the police station and holds signs in front of
the police station. Talking about what an awful police achievement.
You know, how awful working for the police is. I
should let Mayor Dyer know and let city employees protest
while they're working, protest the city like it's insane. It's asinine.

(07:18):
Maybe I should go to work and just protest against
Right to life, you know whatever, while I'm on Right
to Life's clock. It's insane. Anyway, the stroke of a
pen is not going to change how lands are managed,
said Patrick Wright, the head of an existing state federal

(07:38):
partnership on California forestry whose origins date back to the
first Trump administration. It can affect things at the margins,
but for the most part, forest planning is done at
the local and regional level. One out of every five
acres in California is in a national forest. Overall, federal
agencies own and manage about half of California. Only about

(07:59):
three percent of California's land mass is owned by the
state government. So when any governor wants to change how
land is managed in California to reduce fire dangers due
to rising temperatures and climate change, it's done through partnerships.
Newsom's predecessor, Jerry Brown, tried to double the annual acres
from two hundred and fifty thousand acres to five hundred
thousand acres in California that are thinned of the build

(08:20):
up of brush and small trees that can turn a
modest fire into a historic conflagration. Not to be outdone,
Newsom in twenty twenty one doubled Brown's goal to a
million treated acres annually. In twenty twenty one alone, wildfires
burn more than three million acres statewide. Trump and Newsom
have had some testy political moments after fires. In twenty eighteen,

(08:41):
after the devastating blaze that leveled the Butte County community
of Paradise, Trump lauded how Finland's forestry has emphasized a
lot of raking and cleaning. After January's devastating fires in
the Los Angeles area, Trump blamed the blazes on a
lack of water from northern California, despite record amounts of
water storage in southern California. Well, yeah, that is part

(09:02):
of it. They didn't have enough. I mean, they didn't
have enough. That is an ongoing, constant problem anyway. But
in the aftermath, when it comes to forestry, both leaders
have found themselves on similar political pages. Newsom issued in
executive order waiving environmental laws to accelebrate to accelerate forestry
thinning efforts, Trump's team emphasized reduced regulations as well to

(09:25):
increase timber harvest nationwide by a quarter as part of
a broader agenda to develop more natural resources domestically, and
will staffing cuts be Trump's forestry downfall. In twenty twenty three,
California fell short by about twenty five percent of its
target to reduce the fire risk on a million acres

(09:46):
a year. You know, this is a thing with Newsom.
He sets these lofty goals and then when he doesn't
accomplish them, he acts as though, like we shouldn't. We're
not supposed to judge him that. So he sets this goal, oh,
a million acres of forestry thinn and it doesn't get done.

(10:08):
And it's sort of like the contrast between him and
Ronda Santis, for example. DeSantis' administration has been characterized by
aggressive follow through on priorities, like difficult projects, like you know,
reforming Florida's you know, state university systems to get rid

(10:30):
of woke professors and to genuinely reform their sort of
their boards of trustees, et cetera, like that's actually happening,
Like he actually has followed through with it. It's not
a thing of like ninety nine percent of Republican governors
who complain about all of them. I'm sure how many
Republican governors of Texas have complained about all them liberals

(10:52):
up in Austin at the university at ut who are
just a bunch of liberals and boo boo boo and
the liberals liberal professors at college station and then act
helpless as the the chief executive of the state, and
as the chief as the legislators for the state, act

(11:14):
helpless to affect any sort of change at a state university.
No DeSantis demonstrated genuine follow through. Newsom doesn't follow through
with stuff. And I think it's because being governor is
an unpleasant, difficult, onerous, time consuming job that Newsom is

(11:34):
totally checked out of. I think he had to work
a lot during COVID and he is bored. He has
checked out. I mean, here he has time, apparently to
do a podcast, but you know, he has all this
time apparently to go interview Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon

(11:57):
for some bizarre reason or EZRA client. But you know,
here's something that's a critically important state priority. Wildfires. Wildfires
have been a devastating thing for the state. For his
whole governorship. We had massive wildfires twenty eighteen, twenty twenty,

(12:21):
twenty twenty five. Like his whole governorship, he has been
faced with this horrible problem of forest fires, and some
of his signature priorities on combating forest fires, this goal
of a million acres cleared or whatever. He doesn't reach
the goal. He only got to like seventy five percent

(12:45):
of it. Anyway. In twenty twenty three, California fell short
by about twenty five percent of its target to reduce
the fire risk on a million acres a year. There's
room for more timber harvests that also reduce fire dangers
to meet that target, and some perhaps surprising political support
to do so. John Buckley, a twain Heart based forestry

(13:08):
activist in the Stanislaus National Forest, said he supports more
logging if quote done consistent with conservation policies, and applies
selection logging treatments that could be consistent with creating open
parklike forests that make them less vulnerable to high severity wildfires,
but planning a large scale timber harvest in California, even
with all these executive orders, takes time at current speeds,

(13:31):
said right, some harvests and envision today won't happen until
the next president's administration, and nobody can do more than
speculate how additional cuts to forest Service staff will impact
how many logging plans those remaining can manage in the
years ahead. Staffing constraints can certain are certainly a problem
if the United States Forestry Service. In the United States

(13:54):
Forestry Service for many activities, including timber sale administration, said j.
Keith gillis a veteran of California Forestry and now professor
Meredith at UC Berkeley. It's going to be potentially more
difficult to get things done with reduced staff. This is
so stupid. The author of this piece clearly wants to.

Speaker 3 (14:11):
Say Trump is making this harder because he fired all
the forestry staff and he's doing these leading questions to
these professors were like, well, yeah, it could be harder
without enough staffing, even though, like the whole idea.

Speaker 1 (14:26):
Behind the DOGE project is to eliminate federal employees, weren't
doing anything to cut out the fat. If we have
a new, massive, aggressive project of forest clearing and forestry,
et cetera, then presumably you could hire the people to

(14:47):
do that. Asking the US Forest Service to do a
lot more in California with less foresters a recipe for inaction. Well,
you know what else is a recipe for inaction. Apparently
not discussed in this piece is the fact that every

(15:09):
time President Trump tries to do something in California that
involves the environment. For example, when President Trump's administration issued
the new biological Opinions through I think it was through
the Department of the Interior and various federal regulatory bodies

(15:30):
that oversee the federal run Central Valley Water System, with
the goal being let's deliver more water for San Waquean
Valley farmers. What happens, well, the State of California sues him.
And I think that is a much bigger problem is

(15:51):
Gavin Newsom has these two conflicting motives. Appeal to his
donors by being as controversially opposed as hostile as possible
towards the Trump administration as antagonistic as possible towards the
Trump administration to delight his donors, but at the same

(16:13):
time to actually address the problems the state faces. I'm
going to talk about that dynamic next. How basically Newsom
is trying to delight his donors and that hinders him
from actually governing. Well that is next on the John
Gerrardy Show. Gavin Newsom and Donald Trump are apparently maybe

(16:33):
trying to have some kind of reprochement when it comes
to forestry management issues. Newsom wants to cut down more
small trees. Trump wants more logging. Maybe there's some middle
ground they can pursue. What's the problem. Well, here's a problem.

(16:54):
Let's go back to the first Trump administration. First Trump
administration administers new regulations for the federally controlled Central Valley
Water System, so water in California. You basically have San
Joaquin and Sacramento rivers empty out into the San Francisco Bay.

(17:15):
They meet at this point east of the San Francisco Bay,
which is called the Delta. And at the Delta we
have the origins of two massive water transport systems. Rather
than just letting the water go off into the Pacific Ocean,
we take some of that water and we pump it
south and it goes south through a series of canals.

(17:40):
One system, the Central Valley Water System, is controlled by
the federal government. It's built by the federal government during
the forties and continues to be administered by federal executive
agencies today. A lot of that water goes to the
San Joaquin Valley and is used is critically important for
far in the San Joaquin Valley. The other system that

(18:03):
pumps water south is the California Water System, owned administered
by the state of California, which pumps water south and
a lot of it winds up providing the kind of
needed residential water, residentially use water, water from the tap,
water in your shower, et cetera for southern California. Now

(18:29):
that they both Central Valley and the California systems, they
have other uses, but those are sort of the things
that they're sort of most important that those are the
uses that are most important for those systems. The Trump
administration tried to change the inherited by Obama era rules

(18:52):
regarding how much water could be pumped into the Central
Valley system on account of the you know, based on
the needs of wildlife. Okay, so the idea was farmer.
The federal water system was getting less and less water

(19:14):
because of the certain kinds of biological opinions regarding wildlife
within the delta. Within basically the idea being well. Water
can either just be let to go out into the
ocean and thereby preserved for quote environmental purposes i e.
To help sustain the fishy populations or whatever, or it

(19:37):
can be pumped south for farming and residential use. The
Obama administration had these limits based on the status of
how fish were doing, and it was a very rigid system. Basically,
you had one assessment for a whole year. I was

(20:00):
looking at how the fish population were doing. The fish
population aren't doing so good, so all this water gets
sent out into the ocean. The Trump rules were much
more flexible, involved ongoing assessments of how fish population were doing.
If fish population were doing better, more water could be
pumped for farming or residential use into the Central Valley

(20:20):
water system. So it was like the first set of
regulations to actually deliver more rather than less water to
farmers in decades. And it wasn't a crazy system. It
was stuff that had been developed, had been started and
researched under the Obama administration, and was instituted in the

(20:40):
Trump administration. Well, Gavin Newsom, rather than just letting it stand,
Gavin Newsom sued the federal government to stop it and
tied it up in litigation. Why well, because Gavin Newsom
has always been about pleasing his donors, and his donors

(21:02):
hate Donald Trump more than they hate anything. His donors
wanted him to be maximally confrontational and antagonistic towards Trump,
even though this was not a crazy system, even though

(21:23):
this was not some horrible environment destructive system. But environmental
groups got mad, and their billionaire donors got mad, and
Gavin Newsom has to placate them. So the idea, you
know again, this was an op ed piece in the
President bu The idea that what could be the obstacle

(21:47):
to President Trump versus Gavin Newsom's approach to forestream management.
The idea that all the main problem is that President
Trump fired all those Federal parks employees. Well, you can
rehire those people. If you're going to institute you probably
need to hire different kinds of people. If you're going

(22:09):
to institute a big logging program or forestry rush, whatever
management program, you might need different kinds of employees. So
the idea that President Trump fired all these people, and
that's never gonna make it work. I mean, that's I
think that's silly. No, the main problem is that I
find it hard to see how Trump could ever trust

(22:31):
Newsom as a partner in such a venture, and they
would need to cooperate because if Trump does anything, Newsom doesn't. Well,
if Trump does anything, I would say, he faces the
risk that Gavin Newsom slash Rob Bonta are going to

(22:52):
sue the federal government to try to stop whatever it
is Trump wants to do. That's the problem, just like
he did with water stuff in the first Trump administration.
That's the problem. This idea that you know, and this
has been Newsome's difficulty is, on the one hand, actually governing,

(23:14):
but on the other hand playcating his donors. When we
returned my unified theory of Gavin Newsom next on the
John Girardi Show, I want to give my unified theory
of Gavin Newsom for you all. My unified theory what
makes the man tick. I don't think it's you know,

(23:35):
some blinding insight that politicians cater to what their supporters
want them to do. I mean, obviously that's kind of
the nature of the system. Nor do I think it
is a some blinding flash of insight that they cater
to what their donors want them to do, maybe more
particularly than the actual voters who vote for them. Again,

(23:58):
this is not anything new. People have made the joke
that politicians should be like NASCAR drivers, that they should wear,
you know, instead of a suit and tie, they should
wear a jumpsuit showing little stickers of proportionate size for
all the different industries, businesses, etc. Who have donated to

(24:21):
their campaigns. But I would say that Gavin Newsome is
such a creature of this. He is his actions are
so obviously tied to what and proportionate to what his

(24:44):
donors want him to do. And it's kind of an
amazing thing because I think Gavin Newsom's a pretty smart guy.
I do. I mean, you hear him. I think he
is quick on his feet. I think he is there
some degree of intellectual curiosity there. I don't think he's

(25:05):
a dummy. There are politicians out there who I do
one hundred percent would say are dummies. I don't think
he's necessarily a dummy. I think he's a very shrewd operator,
and I think he's intellectually curious, and I think he
has a lot of instincts that would make him want

(25:26):
to be more moderate. But he's also he exemplifies the
Groucho Marx quote. There's the Groucho Marx joke of those
are my principles, and if you don't like them, well
I have others. Like he changes, He is a chameleon.

(25:46):
He is perfectly willing to change what his stated beliefs
are if he recognizes that that's the way the wind
is blowing. I mean, his change of heart on transgender athlete,
you know, biological boys playing girls' sports. His change of
heart is so transparently political. It's so obvious that, like,

(26:12):
I mean, it makes your head spin, Like this is
the guy who literally signed into law the mandate that
prisoners in the California prison system be housed according to
their gender identity, not their biological sex. And here he
is talking about, oh, yeah, that's so unfair for biological
men to play women's sports. All of a sudden after
the twenty twenty four elections, seven years into his eight

(26:34):
years as governor, Like, really, where was that idea for
the prior seven years when you could have maybe introduced
legislation to you know, correct course, correct that you know when,
by the way, the whole San Jose State, San Jose
State wrecked havoc on the entire Mountain West volleyball season,

(26:55):
Mountain West girls volleyball season because San Jose State had
a biological male playing who is spiking the ball one
hundred and ten miles per hour into girls' faces. And
you had a bunch of teams who forfeited, refused to
play against San Jose State because they had a biological man.

(27:16):
You know, no mention of that all last year during
the again, the whole twenty twenty four Mountain West women's
volleyball season because of a California state school over which
Gavin Newsom would purportedly have some degree of oversight, a
California state school had a biological man playing women's volleyball,
completely wrecked havoc on that whole season. A bunch of
teams forfeited. It was, Yeah, it was a disaster. Newsom

(27:41):
nowhere to be seen until after the November elections. Now,
why is Newsome the way he is? I think he
is one hundred percent a creature of his political backers.

(28:01):
He does what they tell him to do in ways
that frankly, Donald Trump doesn't you awards and all. That
is one thing you can look and I critical of
Trump in certain ways, very supportive of Trump in various

(28:21):
other ways. That is definitely one thing you can say
of Trump is that he had obvious ways that he
could have moderated his beliefs that would have resulted in
a lot more campaign funding. And it's one hundred percent true.
In all three of his presidential campaigns, President Trump was
significantly outraised by Democrats, and he still won two out

(28:45):
of three of them. I mean, like the fact that
Trump won two out of three presidential elections while totally
alienating the Koch Brothers, the Charles Koke sort of universe
of financial political support and alienated a lot of other
like more traditional Republican donors who were very eager to
give to Mitt Romney and you know, prior Republican presidential candidates.

(29:10):
It shows to a certain extent Trump is his own man.
He one hundred percent is well, you know, he has
really done a lot to play Kate Elon Musk since
this last election, when Elon Musk gave him hundreds of
gazillions of dollars. So maybe not one hundred percent. But

(29:32):
you can also see but I will say you do
see within the Trump administration, it's not Elon Musk running
the show. It's Donald Trump running the show, and Elon
Musk is helping out in so far as Trump permits it.
Newsom is not that way, Okay. Newsom gets tons and

(29:52):
tons of money from the teachers unions, and what happens
during COVID, teachers' unions are allowed to keep stuff closed
basically as long as they want. The only time he
sort of interjected otherwise was to kind of encourage openings
right before the recall election. But I mean there was

(30:14):
a very critical juncture during COVID where Newsom, who had
been exercising, you know, all this extraordinary power, Newsom basically
became our COVID dictator. And I use that word advisedly,
like the Roman style dictator, where basically, in a state
of emergency, one man all of a sudden assumes emergency
powers to completely run the entirety of the state. That

(30:37):
was the Roman model of the dictatorship, an emergency temporary
position in which one man was in control of the
entire operation of the state. That's what Newsom was. Basically
the state legislature delegated to him basically all law making
authority with regards to governing US during COVID. So he
had all this power. He could have told the teachers' unions, no,

(31:00):
having one single statewide negotiation for reopening, it's not going
to be on an individual school district by school district level.
We're having one unified state standard. And the teachers union said, no,
we want it on an individual district by district level
because that would have maximized the powers of the unions.

(31:20):
And that's what Newsom allowed, which resulted in a whole
bunch of school districts staying closed for way longer. It
resulted in ridiculous outcomes like San Francisco Unified School District
opening for I think one day at the end of
the twenty twenty one twenty two school year. I believe
it was. They opened for one day so they could

(31:41):
get an eight million dollars state grant and that was it.
Newsom was all care at no stick towards the unions.
Newsom has done everything the unions wanted him to do.
Newsom was like ready to abandon the high speed rail project. Eh,
the unions got to him and said maybe on abandon
and maybe let's do this mercaid to Bakersfield thing. He

(32:02):
doesn't demand in high speed rail because the union tells him.
Labor unions tell him, don't do that. On education, he
lets the teachers unions run the show. On forestry management,
he clearly wants to do more with forestry management, and
he has to be moderated by the environmental groups. The

(32:24):
environmental groups why because they are funded by the billionaire
donors who fund him. And so much of what Gavin
Newsom has done has been Again, let's remember this. Newsom
came to power through the Willie Brown so called Magic

(32:49):
Circle of San Francisco power politics of big time, old
money San Francisco donors. In fact, you could argue Newsom
already knew that man circle before you know, getting Willy
Brown's patronage. Newsom grew up as lifelong childhood friends with
Gordon Getty, the heir to the Getty fortune. Yeah, like

(33:11):
the Getty Museum, Gettys. Gordon Getty sort of that generation
of Getty invested in basically all of Newsom's pre electoral
office businesses. He was an investor for like eleven of
the fourteenth fourteen businesses that Newsom owned. So Newsom owes

(33:33):
his whole career to that group of political to that
first of the Getties. I mean, Newsom's dad was a
lawyer for the Getty Oil company. Newsom grew up with
the Gettys like lifelong friends, and it was through the
Getty's he meets Willy Brown. Willy Brown introduces him to

(33:53):
the broader circle of San Francisco politics. It's Willy Brown
who appoints Newsom to be a county supervisor for the
city's County of San Francisco. From there, Newsom is able
to run for mayor and his political career is off.
Newsom owes his whole life to the donor class of
modern Democrat liberal California. So he does what they say.

(34:19):
He has this interest in doing what they say. And
it's also because this crowd of his donors, they're capable
of launching someone to the presidency. They vaulted Kamala Harris
to be a heartbeat away they hoisted I firmly believe this.
They foisted foisted, I think is the word Kamala Harris

(34:41):
on Joe Biden when he probably didn't even wanner. Biden
comes out and foolishly says we're gonna pack the first
black woman and a very virus president. And then he's
stuck because even though basically the donors said, you're picking
Kamala Harris, he could have picked someone else. He could
have picked someone with a lower profile, maybe someone like
Susan r whom he had actually worked with, who then

(35:01):
proceeded to have a really critical policy role within the
Biden administration, was probably much more influential on policy than
Harris ever was, and Biden kind of got forced into
picking her when they had never worked together. Jill hated her. Reportedly,
Harris had insulted Biden to his face during the Democratic

(35:24):
primary debates when she basically called him a racist over
his views on bussing policies. And why did he pick her?
I believe it's because that donor class which has made
Nancy Pelosi so important in the Democrat world, because she's
the lifeline to those donors. That's why she became speaker.

(35:45):
That class of donors that Backscavin Newsom can vault him
to be president, so he is going to dance for them.
Why do you think Newsom has been so aggressive on
all of his pro abortion policies, even pro abortion policies
that were totally meaningless. There was going to be a
one month window where Arizona was going to revert to
its pre nineteen seventy three pre Roe v. Wade very

(36:07):
restrictive laws on abortion, and abortion was going to be illegal.
And Newsim was like, well, we'll set up a whole
system to allow doctors and patients to come from Arizona
to California and give temporary licensure to Arizona doctors so
they can do their abortions in California and follow their patients.
Not one doctor took advantage of the program, but Newsom

(36:28):
got to have his little victory lap for his donors
and get their applause. He does things to get their applause.
He dances for them, and that is the key to
understanding Newsom. Newsom may want to do forestry things, and
there may be common ground between him and Donald Trump
on forestry management, but if that donor class wants him

(36:50):
instead to sue Donald Trump over forestry stuff, that's precisely
what he and Rob Bonta are going to do. When
we return the fundamental reason why Newsom won't be elected
president next on The John Jrroardy Show. Will Gavin Newsom
be elected president? We'll even get the Democrat nomination. No,

(37:12):
I fundamentally don't think he will. Why he's just been
a bad governor by any objective measure. Look like, throw
away your politics, throw away your political ideologies about the
environment or this, that or the other. He's been saying

(37:34):
we needed to build more housing for eight years. We're
not building more housing. He's been saying we need better
forestry management to avoid wildfires. We don't have it. He's
been saying we're gonna get the high speed rail built.
We don't have the high speed rail. By his own
standards set when he was elected, he hasn't been a

(37:55):
successful governor. And eventually other Democrats who've been, you know,
good old Gavin Newsom, when he's actually in a bitter
contest for a Democrat presidential primary against other ambitious people,
they are going to make that very clear. And I
don't think he'll ever be president as a result. That'll
do it. John Girardi shows, See you next time on

(38:16):
Power Talk