Gavin Newsom, the governor of California who also has aspirations to the presidency, has destroyed any chance he has of achieving that higher office, by creating a podcast.
The first guest on that podcast? Charlie Kirk. The unqualified white nationalist backed by far-right millionaires.
Aww hell no. I’m never going to support a candidate who gives air to evil lunatics like that.
Even worse…what did they talk about? They found common ground in their shared hatred of transgender athletes. It’s insane. Transgender kids participating in sports is a good thing that should not be of concern, and only bigots are furious at trans boys and girls. Especially since…
Newsweek also spoke to Gillian Branstetter, a spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who told Newsweek that Save Women’s Sports, a leading voice in the bid to ban transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports, identified only five transgender athletes competing on girls’ teams in school sports for grades K through 12.
Yes, that’s right. Not 5000, not 500, not even 50 – just five trans student-athletes. All of this legislation, work, lobbying and anger – is aimed at preventing a tiny handful of young people from playing school sports.
It shouldn’t matter whether there are 5 or 5 million — denying rights to any group of people is wrong. Newsom is just pandering to the perception that Americans all hate trans people.
Came across this headline today – “Ten Democrats join Republicans to vote to censure Al Green over Trump speech”.
There really is no hope for Democrats.
“Newscum” might be the perfect name for this guy.
If the billionaire democrats aren’t fought tooth and nail now, in 20 years we will have democrats singing peans to how wonderful the Trump years were. They want nothing more than to destroy everything you love and hold dear just like the republicans, only they will be ever so polite about it.
Beginning to think all those who shouted “There is not difference between the parties” are somewhat vindicated by these event.
Edit” “There is no…”
Akira, if that were the case, how come these events have only occurred since Trump took office?
(USA used to be on Ukraine’s side, remember?)
So, no.
The only ones vindicated are the ones who knew exactly that the greater evil is now in charge.
Akira @4: I tried to concentrate on the differences that existed and encourage building policies on them, but then some Newsom-esque democrat would essentially tell me to pipe down, I’ll offend the “moderate” Republicans by making the Democratic party different from Republicans. And then they’d unleash venom on people who said the two parties were the same. No pleasing those types.
cf. https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2025/01/03/infinite-thread-xxxiv/comment-page-7/#comment-2256960
(A touch different about Ukraine, if nothing else, are the two parties)
Well pardon the fuck outta me, but it just seems to me that there is that the Democrats, with very few exceptions, are racing each other to see who can go the furthest right without having to invest in a Klan Robe.
Also, this craven “They go low, we go high” bullshit proceeds the last election by years.
Opportunist. Y’all know he was married to big time trumpist (and now grouper-lipped) Kimberly Guilfoyle, right?
Well, just saying. From the Ukrainian perspective, at least, they are not the same party.
I reckon that, from most practical perspectives, the difference is rather stark.
Like, say, from NATO’s perspective, not just from other countries’.
I think it’s a mistake to take a single issue on which we disagree with the Democrats and say, based on that, that there’s no difference between them. In addition to the Ukraine, the Democrats are also pro-abortion rights, pro-gay marriage, pro-social safety net, pro-national health care, and pro-diversity. The difference is that with the Democrats we’ll get some of what we want and with the Republicans we’ll get all of what we don’t want. So even if the Democrats cave on trans issues completely, I think overall we’re still better off with them than with Republicans, and sometimes in politics that’s the best we can do.
And I don’t see the Democrats as the problem; I see the American public as the problem. To the extent that the Democrats are caving on trans rights it’s because trans rights are a losing issue for them. The first duty of a politician is to win the election. Sometimes in politics all you can do is get what you can and leave the rest for another day. For those that disagree with me, what are you proposing the Democrats should do instead? Remain out of office for a decade or two until the American people come around?
Last time we had this conversation someone who disagreed with me (I forget who) asked me if there are any actual historical examples of liberals coming out ahead for the Democrats having moved to the right. Yes. Bill Clinton. He took all kinds of positions we hated, including signing some pretty anti-gay legislation. I’m gay, and I remember the acute sense of betrayal I felt when Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. But it got him reelected instead of Bob Dole, who would have been worse by orders of magnitude. If Bob Dole had won that election Roe v Wade probably would have been killed off a decade earlier than it was.
May the coming months and years be a crucible for the Ds. May the civility hand-wringers be driven exhausted and ineffectual.
Wow, Newscum really turned into a pile of excrement with that bromance with charlie Kirk. I’m truly disgusted at their lack of decency and humanity. They are both pushing us down the DEATH SPIRAL at an ever faster rate!
Last time we had this conversation someone who disagreed with me (I forget who) asked me if there are any actual historical examples of liberals coming out ahead for the Democrats having moved to the right. Yes. Bill Clinton. He took all kinds of positions we hated, including signing some pretty anti-gay legislation…
Did he take those positions BEFORE he was elected? Because I don’t remember him moving to the right when he was actually campaigning. In fact, I remember he got a lot of cheers for saying Bush Sr. should never have promised “no new taxes” because it was a stupid and irresponsible idea. (Then again, a mere few minutes later in the very same debate, he promised “no new taxes on the middle class,” which pretty much undercut his sensible objection to Republican tax cuts.) Other folks’ mileage may vary, but it seemed to me that Clinton won because people were tired of Reagan’s policies, which were failing, coupled with Bush Sr’s kinda lame performance as a champion of Reaganism. I don’t think Clinton won because he “moved to the right,” he won because he was a much better campaigner than Bush Sr. or Dole.
I know he made a lot of compromises (most of which looked like capitulation to me, 2BH) after getting elected — some of them before Republicans retook both houses of Congress — so how much did Democrats really “win” then?
And how does Kirk repay Newscum’s fellatio? On Kirk’s podcast he said this about the interview:
Newscum is likely thinking But… but… I was nice to him! I don’t understand!
These snowballing social delusions are fucking terrifying.
ah there goes my only hope democratic governors were going to offer a sliver of a shit of resistance. i earnestly hope newsom fucken dies. he seems to think our entire existences are a political chip to cash in.
fucking motherfucker is gov of the state with san francisco in it. top ten anime betrayals dot com.
Wait, are people surprised? I thought Newsom had openly been a bag of dicks for years already. Am I confusing him with another democratic presidential hopeful?
(I know I’m not confusing him with Cuomo.)
Raging Bee @15
Remember Stone Mountain?
https://jacobin.com/2016/09/stone-mountain-kkk-white-supremacy-simmons/
It does feel like the democrats are a bunch of nihilistic opportunists, compared to republicans who are opportunistic nihilists.
Whelp, those predictions that losing the last election would force the Democrats to the political left sure look like they’ve panned out eh?
To be fair this one paints Clinton’s 1992 campaign in a more progressive light so maybe he was a mixed bag overall:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/09/bill-clinton-a-fabulous-failure-nelson-lichtenstein-judith-stein/
As for Newsom, I recall him not too long ago as the water walking California golden boy. There was that weird debate with Desantis who made my state a magnet for disenchanted MAGA nutcases from other states including California. Thank you other states for helping shift Florida from purple to red. Grrrrr!!!
Anyway Newsom platforming that weird forehead structure, odd hair cut sporting scumbag Charlie Kirk (not to be confused with Russell Kirk) made me realize again that Kamala Harris was not even close to being the worst choice the Dems could have made as a POTUS candidate. Cringe!
Actually, no, I didn’t remember that. Thanks for the reminder.
And I still ask: how much did Democrats really “win” by moving so far right? Bill Clinton signed that crime bill in 1994, but Democrats still got crushed in Congress later that same year, and Clinton pretty much became a lame-duck then, despite being re-elected by a wide margin in 1996. Which, in turn, left the party looking pretty weak going into the 2000 election.
Another possible reason Clinton won is that, “tough on crime” or not, he was simply a better campaigner than all the others (whom I’ve since forgotten). Did Clinton win by moving to the right, or was he just a better candidate than those to his left at the time (especially Dukakis)?
Clinton ran to the left as as a pro labor Democrat and then proceeded to basically do a 180 on everything and enact Bush seniors agenda. The democrats would prefer to lose on a rightwing platform than win on a leftwing one. This has always been the case and will always be the case until we primary every single money gribbing psycho from the party.and for the dumbass above trans rights are not a losing issue, quite the opposite the data shows that candidates who run on transphobia do worse than not. The reason they are pivoting now is they think they are safe from the left. They think Trump winning means the Bernie dragon is dead and they can live their best lives as 2004 republicans. They don’t care about anything descent moral humans claim to care about because they are a rightwing party working for billionaire money.
I think Clinton benefited at least a little from Ross Perot being in the race against Bush for president.
I don’t recall Dukakis as a competitor in ‘92 but he was an unfair example of what not to do. Paul Tsongas was an early contender in 92 as was Jerry Brown during the primaries. That was so long ago my strongest memory was maybe Phil Hartman (pbuh) playing Clinton eating fast food or something. Or some person asking about getting her stuff.
This was one classic, but started getting really sad as it talked about the operations in Somalia which had started under Bush but turned into a debacle under Clinton as kinda poorly depicted in Black Hawk Down. They couldn’t have known during the skit what it would become:
Netflix has Surviving Black Hawk Down which is more horrific than the movie. At the time I thought Somalia was an operation Bush Sr may have tucked up Clinton’s ass. Uggh!
But Clinton hogging everybody’s fast food orders was kinda funny despite that historical flashback. Egads!
You Americans really need to over haul you political system before the fascists do it for you.
Hemi: Here’s another MoJo article about Newsom: “Gavin Newsom’s MAGA Drift is Here”
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/gavin-newsoms-maga-drift-is-here/
Why do Democrats let “trans women in professional sports” be even a political issue? They should just let the organisations deal with the issues, I don’t get it.
lotharloo, it’s simple enough: [Gavin Newsom] ≠ [Democrats].
The one refers to an individual, the other to the members (elected or not) of a political party, or at the very least those who sympathise/vote for that party. So you are making a category error, among others.
cf. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-democratic-party-platform
(Primarily, you are engaging in an implicit fallacy of fallacy of composition)
@JM:
I don’t think it’s just Newsom. I think the Democratic party has decided that what lost them the election was trans people and not nominating a senile old man who said “We beat Medicare.” So expect more Democrats to follow suit.
Well, I just clickety-clicked.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/06/democrats-trans-sports-2028-00216585
Why act outrage and surprised? In the last election the useless American left demonstrated that they prioritize hating the Democratic party over saving the Republic from Fascism. You kind of send a very strong signal that you will never have ther back and will never support them even in the most dire of circumstances. So of course they go to the people who actually bother voting.
I mean, if you think otherwise you could start by finally banning the likes of silentbob, numerobis and beholder and others who have made it clear they want fascism and will tell any lie necessary to make it happen while still pretending to be “progressives”.
@32. lotharloo : “I think the Democratic party has decided that what lost them the election was trans people and not nominating a senile old man who said “We beat Medicare.”
Er, they didn’t. Biden wsn’t the nominee. Kamala Harris,a relatively young POC woman was.
Although I reckon it certainly would’ve been better if Biden had stepped aside much earlier like with a year or more to go..
@StevoR:
I think Kamala did a lot of things right but also a lot of things wrong (like cozying up to the Republicans) but it is very unfair to pin the loss on Kamala. Biden lost it. He lost it so bad, that the party had to scramble to remove him to prevent him from sabotaging the down-ballot races. Had Biden stayed, Trump would have win in a massive landslide and he could actually justify “having a mandate”. Democratic candidates in other races would be completely demolished. So yeah, it is pretty unfair to blame Kamala when Biden absolutely destroyed the Democratic party, although I guess the fucking party did it to itself by valuing “seniority” above all.
And the useless American left continues to try and pin the blame on someone else. This way you never have to change what you are doing, after all, you did everything right, it’s everyone else who is wrong. So Kamala and Biden weren’t perfect enough for you, so let’s throw the country to the fascists and embrace all the death and suffering that will come with it. Globally.
FUCK YOU!
StevoR: Biden won the primary campaign against no serious opposition from the party. He only stepped aside at the last minute, facing a revolt within.
AugustusVerger: If you take any opposition to Democrats ans equivalent to support for fascism, then you’re calling for PZ to ban himself.
What’s that smell of cheap vodka and soiled underpants? Must be one of those filthy treacherous tankies around. Hope PZ takes out that trash soon enough.
Ahem. I am aware the Democrats are the only game in town. So they need your votes.
But that does not mean you should put up with the incompetent weasels that have been running tve party since Reagan.
The primaries are your friends. Vote. And vote out the quasi-Republicans.
@30 lotharloo: Because a candidate doesn’t get to pick was his opponent raises as an issue and doesn’t get to pick what the media reports on.
As a candidate setting himself not to argue with Republicans on trans rights makes sense. Ultimately I’m even OK with him not being for trans rights as long as he doesn’t do anything against trans rights. But every issue he sells out on makes me less interested in him as a candidate at all.
@34 AugustusVerger: It wasn’t really the left that cost the Democrats. A lot was immigrant groups that are not politically left but usually vote Democratic giving Trump enough votes. These groups are one of the reasons some Democratic party people are trying to stake out a less socially liberal position.
If you’re smelling cheap vodka and soiled underpants, I suggest you go seek help to deal with your denial of the blatant fact that Democrats are failing to connect with voters.
I’m taking a more cynical view. Newsom is setting himself up for a 2028 run. He’s trying to distance himself from what he views is a losing social issue. He knows he has to appeal to a small sliver of persuadable independents and even borderline MAGAts to have a chance in the Electoral College. If cutting loose trans women is the way to do it, he will. He’s a career politician.
Watts: If that’s what he’s doing, he’s doing it wrong. First, he’s not just “trying to distance himself from what he views is a losing social issue;” he’s flat-out pandering to the other side of that issue. And second, “trying to distance himself” from one issue, just because it’s only a small handful of people affected by it (who still won’t vote Republican), won’t just alienate that small handful — it’ll alienate everyone who needs to see strength, resolve and clarity in liberal/progressive politicians. And without gaining any noticeable support from those who oppose him on that issue. (Seriously, did anyone think he could get Charlie fucking Kirk to endorse a Democrat?)
There’s better ways to appeal to “persuadable independents and even borderline MAGAts,” that don’t involve showing overt disdain for any of your own core supporters (or giving a platform to pond-scum who don’t deserve one and already have their own). One way Newsom could have handled this is by saying something like “Look, you don’t have to care about trans people to see that the people who hate them are liars and frauds, and can never be trusted or considered worth our time.” Or, you know, he could have just chosen to talk about a different issue — it’s not like Democrats have a shortage of issues they can win on.
Dems need to realize that voters value authenticity. Staking out a conservative stance on an issue to appeal to Republicans will lose more votes than it gains.
He’s seeing polls that show a majority of democrats don’t want transgender athletes competing in girl’s sports and is responding. If the polls change so will he.
Look, I vote blue almost no matter who in every election. I voted straight-ticket Democrat in November, as I did in 2022, 2020, 2018, and 2016. I talked up the candidates constantly to my small social circle, and did what little I could to spread the word about the dangers posed by Republicans. I tried to encourage people to get out and vote. I even refrained from criticism of the Dems prior to the election, despite have some serious reservations about the way they were campaigning. Nevertheless, I’m very far left, especially as far as US politics go.
And, you know what? What Newsom did is big fucking red line for me. Should he become a presidential candidate, I will not vote for him, regardless of the alternatives, unless he apologizes, retracts his vile statements, and shows that he’s learned to do better.
It’s not just trans people in sports where he agreed with Charlie Kirk, either. He also found common ground on torturing trans people in prisons and the horrors of pronouns. So, basically, we can infer from the interview that he’s fine with trans and non-binary people existing as long as he doesn’t have to know about it and it in no way inconveniences him. If we do inconvenience him (as apparently we have) we can plainly see whose side he’ll take from the voice he’s chose to elevate on his very first podcast. Charlie Kirk has made no secret of the fact that he thinks trans and non-binary people should be wiped off the face of the Earth, and here’s Newsom nodding along with him.
I do not vote for godsdamned Nazis. If that makes me a “purity pony,” fine. There are more effective ways to deal with murderous Nazi scum than voting, anyway.
“I do not vote for godsdamned Nazis. If that makes me a “purity pony,” fine.”
It makes you an informed, conscientious voter.
It wasn’t a purity test Newsome failed; it was a test on basic humanity, for anyone who’s read the Niemoller poem.
I noticed you didn’t share the link to it