About Last Week…

Did you know Gavin Newsom is not running for president?

Apparently, Gavin himself may not know as he vetoed the very pro-trans lobby, very anti-child bill called AB 957 that would have factored gender affirmation into custody cases – i.e., if you don’t affirm the child’s choice, say goodbye to the child.

The bill was yet another nightmare Sen. Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco) attempted to foist upon the state. He was not pleased with Gavin’s demurral, calling it a “tragedy” and claiming kids will be harmed by the veto and Republicans will Hester Prynne them with the scarlet LGBTQIIA+.

Nonsense and garbage, of course, but Weiner goes even further saying “right-wing politicians” are trying to “out” the kids.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but outing someone involves telling the world their sexual proclivities against their wishes (by the way, outing was once seen as taboo but some activists claim it’s good and necessary for society and the person so they do it anyway.)

But how would the passage of this bill have changed that?  The kid has to say what they are in order for a parent to affirm their choice or, God forbid – not automatically think a 14-year-old really knows what they’re doing when they decide to get their breasts cut off so express a qualm or two.  The forced outing issue is absolutely not at play in any possible scenario involving this bill.

So stop complaining and let Gavin not run for president by vetoing a bill he really really didn’t want to veto but had to if he were to have any hope in purple states.

Gavin’s actions over the past few months have all pointed to a very specific presidential campaign strategy to replace Joe when one of the invisible people he tries to shake hands with tells him “enough, Joe, we can’t stop meeting like this – you need to move on.”

One of the more interesting aspects is how effusive Newsom has been about Joe and Kamala – “they’re amazing, they’re great, couldn’t be a better team, they’re leading the country out of Trumpism into a golden tomorrow and I’m just here to say how wonderful it’s going to be.”

Even Biden’s most ardent backers in DC don’t talk the way Newsom does. Of course, if he knows something we don’t, the whole pre-eulogy (pruelogy, if you will) strategy makes perfect sense.

You can’t stab someone in the back unless you’re right there behind him.

Of course, the strategy ranks certain issues so expect him to sign most if not all of the gun control bills going before him (shores up his base and he can fund raise off of being tough on guns.)

Speaking of being tough on guns, LA DA George Gascon…wait, sorry, let me re-phrase that…

Speaking of not being at all tough on guns because he won’t charge criminals with the gun enhancement even though he says he favors all manner of gun control (still haven’t figured that one out,) George Gascon may be in more trouble than was apparent just a few days ago.  Thursday, the Globe ran an article on how “wobbly” Gascon’s re-election bid is.

In the wake of the piece, various LA solons and nabobs and movers and shakers and insiders and players seem to have come to the conclusion that the campaign may be too wobbly to save.

The simple fact is that “fall back boy” Jeff Chemerinsky under no circumstances even gets in the race without some very powerful conversations about what to do with George (I, a fan of irony, say think tank him) and how best to loosen his grip pre-primary so the monied progressive class can be united and keep their foot in the DA’s office.

The butt of scuttle is now if he does stay in the race, he may not even make it out of he primary. For an incumbent anything not to come in at least second with 9 other candidates splitting the vote all kinds of different ways is almost unimaginable.

But it seems people are imagining it.

Speaking of imagining things, I came across a sign in front of an office building recently, a big building with a planter and seats and a bit of open area and such outside.  And there was this small sign attached to the building:

As a smoker, I found it interesting and wondered “is it a request to not smoke here or is it the name of the plaza?”

Look at it again – it really could be either – “Please do not smoke here” or “welcome to smoke free plaza” – either interpretation would be technically correct.

I went with the latter, plunked down on the edge of the planter, lit a cigarette and quietly thanked Mr. Smoke Free for donating such a lovely space.

Thanks for reading the Globe!