ARRESTS OF AIDES COULD ALTER TWO MAJOR CALIFORNIA RACES

 CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2025 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“ARRESTS OF AIDES COULD ALTER TWO MAJOR CALIFORNIA RACES”

 

Before this month’s arrests of former top state aides, it was a foregone conclusion that at least one or two Democrats would have to drop out of the ongoing run for California governor just to ensure there will be no Republican-on-Republican runoff next November 3.

 

But the dropouts until now did not figure to include Xavier Becerra, a former California attorney general and Health secretary in the cabinet of ex-President Joe Biden.

 

His onetime top aide, Sean McCluskie, is charged with sending fake bills to a dormant Becerra campaign bank account, along with Dana Williamson, a former top assistant to current Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Govs. Jerry Brown and Gray Davis.

 

Becerra was not implicated in trying to extract funds from his inactive campaign account, which can possibly be used in the future for his political purposes. But his lack of acumen as a judge of the aide’s character might weaken him sufficiently to drive him out of the current race.

 

It is the latest example of this fall’s epidemic of candidate self-destruction, following early Democratic leader and former Orange County Congresswoman Katie Porter’s mishandling of a television interview and Republican Steve Hilton’s sending out a press release criticizing Newsom for actions that had earlier been proven sound.

 

Becerra was tied for third at 8 percent in recent polling on the race, even with Hilton and just three points behind Porter’s 11 percent as the early leader among Democrats.

 

Newsom could be accused of similar poor judgment of character. His former top aide Dana Williamson was also indicted for falsely billing the inactive Becerra account and for claiming business expense tax writeoffs for an expensive vacation, a private airplane flight and even the purchase of a $10,000 luxury purse.

 

Newsom, in Brazil for a climate change conference when the arrests came, cautioned against assuming the former top state aides are guilty of anything, even though investigations into them began during the Biden administration.

 

His office issued a statement saying “The governor expects all public servants to uphold the highest standards of integrity. At a time when the president is openly calling for his attorney general to investigate his political enemies, it is especially important to honor the American principle of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law…”

 

The former aides pleaded not guilty.

 

Newsom first learned Williamson, then his chief of staff, was under investigation in November of last year, and immediately relieved her of her duties. Newsom is not implicated in any wrongdoing and has not allowed the affair to interfere either with his duties as governor or his nascent 2028 presidential campaign.

 

Becerra said he has cooperated fully with federal officials in the investigation of former chief of staff McCluskie and lobbyist Greg Campbell. He is also not implicated in any wrongdoing or misuse of the campaign account, which dates from his years as state attorney general.

 

The entire episode combines with the self-destructive behavior of other candidates to emphasize the instability of today’s run for governor and the early days of the next presidential campaign.

 

No one knows if any other federal investigations might similarly affect current candidates for governor, including the current poll leader, Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state Controller Betty Yee, state schools Supt. Tony Thurmond and former state Assembly majority leader Ian Calderon. 

 

If Becerra were to drop out, chances are his largely Latino base of support would fall to Villaraigosa, the only other Hispanic in the race.

 

That would give Villaraigosa, usually a pragmatist during his two terms as mayor and his time as state Assembly speaker, a major leg up on others left in the race and likely avoid Republicans taking the two leading slots in the state’s non-partisan Top Two primary next June.

 

But the arrests leave a lot unknown and much to be learned once the former leading state aides head to trial. No one knows for sure right now, but whatever information emerges could also help shape the development of both the gubernatorial and presidential campaigns.

 

 

 

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.

 

“WHAT PADILLA’S OPT-OUT MEANS IN THE RUN FOR GOVERNOR”

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2025, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“WHAT PADILLA’S OPT-OUT MEANS IN THE RUN FOR GOVERNOR”

 

By next year, it will have been 28 years since California has had a race for governor as wide-open as what has begun to happen here.

 

It didn’t have to be that way. Had he chosen to run, the unbeaten, unscarred and un-scandaled Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla could have taken over the race like a giant over a gaggle of pygmies.

 

Every election since 1998 has had a similar look to that, with clear favorites from the start, from Gray Davis to Arnold Schwarzenegger to Jerry Brown to Gavin Newsom.

 

Without Padilla, this year’s race has no clear-cut favorite – yet.

 

Had he entered the race, every poll showed he would have been the instant leader, by a wide margin. He could have politically dwarfed the rest of the field, which now includes (among Democrats) former Orange County Congresswoman Katie Porter, former state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state Controller Betty Yee, state schools Supt. Tony Thurmond and former state Assembly majority leader Ian Calderon. There are a few others, but none has made a dent in the polls, currently led by Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco with about 13 percent voter support and Porter with slightly less backing than that.

 

Almost all Bianco’s support comes from Republican voters, which means he would not have much chance against the primary’s leading Democrat, whoever that turns out to be. Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, who led one poll for awhile, also has almost exclusively Republican support.

 

Dropouts so far include former state Senate president Toni Atkins and current Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, both Democrats, and former Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, who left before ever formally entering the race. There will be more, unless Democrats want to enable their nightmare, a GOP-on-GOP race caused by extreme splintering like today’s among the field of ideologically similar Democrats, leaving the top two Republicans alone in the November runoff.

 

Perhaps all these folks thought Padilla would run. But he said it’s more important to him to remain in Washington and “focus on countering President Trump’s agenda in Congress. I choose to stay in this fight because the Constitution is worth fighting for. Our fundamental rights are worth fighting for.”

 

Padilla could have assured those battles would be carried on anyway by whoever he appointed to replace him in the Senate, had he become governor.

 

Padilla was a fairly low-profile senator from 2020, when he was appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to replace Harris, a senator before she became vice president. But while national guardsmen and federal troops patrolled parts of Los Angeles in early June, he entered a Homeland Security press conference by Secretary Kristi Noem and attempted to ask a question.

 

Padilla was thrown to the floor and handcuffed before being released a short time later. His profile and name recognition quickly skyrocketed.

 

Now he says "There's a lot of important work to do (in California), whether it’s economic opportunity, the future of health care, future of the education system and on and on and on.” He will let someone else do all that work.

 

Padilla said he had to “think through where I can be most impactful. Is it from here, or from there?” Clearly, his answer was there, where he now is.

 

But there is no doubt Padilla could have had more impact as governor than as senator. Newsom has shown this, with his opposition to many Trump Administration actions and threats playing a far larger role in today’s political world than any Democratic senator’s.

 

Other senators have realized the same thing before. Before he ran for governor in 1990, for example, ex-Gov. Pete Wilson, then a Republican senator, remarked there are 100 senators but only one governor of California.

 

 

Had Padilla gotten in, there likely would have been a much greater exodus from this race than we have so far seen. There is no one now in the race to match his stature.

 

Perhaps a new entrant will appear (actor George Clooney?), or perhaps one of the remaining candidates will emerge as a stronger candidate than anyone now appears to be. For now, the possibilities appear almost endless and unprecedented in the modern era.

 

30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

 

Suggested pull-out quote: “There are 100 senators but only one governor of California.”

 

 

 

PROP. 50 WIN GIVES NEWSOM HUGE BOOST

  CALIFORNIA FOCUS

1720 OAK STREET, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90405
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2025 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“PROP. 50 WIN GIVES NEWSOM HUGE BOOST”

 

Ever since the Sept. 30 deadline for filing quarterly campaign fundraising reports, it’s been obvious that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pet ballot measure, Proposition 50, was going to win by a landslide.

 

Now it’s become clear that the big margin by which the anti-Donald Trump redistricting plan passed will give Newsom a big leg up on the 2028 presidential campaign he has finally admitted he's considering.

 

The win became obvious when the finance reports showed Democrats had donated more than twice as much to pass Prop. 50 as Republicans had donated against it.

 

That was a sure-fire sign the Republicans had pretty much given up on defeating the proposition. It also meant an end to ex-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s persuasive anti-50 TV ads and caused Republicans to concentrate their efforts on other states where they hope to redistrict to create enough newly Republican districts to guarantee continued GOP control of the House of Representatives.

 

This worked for them in Missouri and North Carolina, gaining one GOP-oriented seat in each, but has failed so far in Kansas and Indiana. And there are the five former Democratic-oriented seats in Texas whose gerrymandering into GOP majorities started this whole thing.

 

Without House control, Trump would lack the freedom of movement he’s enjoyed so far in his second term as president, a freedom he has sometimes believed might even give him the ability to run for a third term, despite the Constitutional ban on running more than twice.

 

That was why Trump began his effort by pressuring Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and its Legislature to redraw those five congressional seats.

 

Newsom became the first national Democrat to fight back strongly, calling the Trump effort “election rigging” and getting those words into the title of his measure. The changes it makes, canceling districts drawn by California’s non-partisan citizens redistricting commission and substituting a plan that figures to give Democrats five new seats to match those the party will likely lose in Texas, are temporary. In 2031, when new districts will be drawn anyhow, the job will revert to the citizens’ commission.

 

That contradicts Schwarzenegger’s often-repeated claim that Prop. 50 means the end for that commission, whose membership is reconstituted every 10 years.

 

For Newsom, it’s the first time he’s taken an action that directly hits back at a Trump effort, which can only bolster his standing among Democrats nationally. Polls show they’re disappointed at their party’s passivity in the face of Trump actions like sending troops into Democratic-run cities, trying to force colleges to buy into his education philosophy no matter how their students, faculty and state legislature might feel and his defiance of some court orders.

 

While the results on 50 came as no surprise to anyone who read the Sept. 30 financial reports, the early count also suggested final totals might closely match a late October CBS News poll that showed 62 percent of likely special election voters would vote for the redistricting.

This was apparently enough to push Newsom into admitting at long last that he is “considering” a 2028 presidential run. He’s betting Trump will not try to forestall that election by declaring a national emergency of some kind, and that whatever Republican is nominated will therefore be someone else.

 

That would run somewhat counter to longtime Trump advisor and former chief strategist Steve Bannon, now back in favor after serving jail time for three convictions of criminal contempt of Congress and fraud. He predicted the other day that Trump “will be president in 2028.” No one actually questions that; a new president is not due to be sworn in until early 2029. But did Bannon really mean 2029?

 

Newsom plainly wants to become the next president in 2029, in part to undo a lot of what Trump has done. Things like his prophetic prediction of artillery products falling on the I-5 freeway in Camp Pendleton during a celebration of the Marine Corps’ 250^th anniversary despite Corps denials that it could happen, can only help him. His closure of that highway, where shrapnel actually fell on police vehicles, probably saved both lives and plenty of property damage.

 

His triumph with Prop. 50, coming soon afterward, will amplify the ground he gained on I-5.

 

For sure, his recent performances give him a leg up on other potential Democratic candidates like Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshears and former Vice President Kamala Harris.

 

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.

 

Suggested pullout quote: “Newsom clearly wants to…undo a lot of what Trump has done.”

 

THIS IS CANDIDATE SELF-DESTRUCTION SEASON

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2025 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“THIS IS CANDIDATE SELF-DESTRUCTION SEASON”

 

For California politicians who fancy themselves as the state’s next governor, this fall has become an unprecedented season of self-destruction.

 

The field aiming to succeed Gavin Newsom is the most crowded in modern memory. So far, the open seat with no obvious successor has drawn the likes of former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state Assemblyman Ian Calderon, former state Controller Betty Yee, former Orange County Congresswoman Katie Porter, former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, former state Attorney General Xavior Becerra, state Schools Supt. Tony Thurmond and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

 

Waiting in the wings: Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, who would probably become the favorite if he declares for the office.

 

For awhile, the polling leader was former Vice President Kamala Harris, the ex-U.S. Senator who dropped out after taking months of considering a run. She was the first candidate to self-destruct, when her September book belittled and griped about major national Democratic figures like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Newsom and even her vice presidential pick, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

 

Harris removed herself from the run for governor, but her book might take her out of the 2028 presidential campaign, too, having established her as a first-rate whiner.

 

Soon after, Porter – the early leader in most gubernatorial polls – was videotaped snapping at a CBS News reporter who asked tough questions and threatening to walk out of their interview. Another tape quickly emerged revealing her as a screaming boss reaming out an aide. Her behavior forced her to apologize, and will hurt her poll standing.

 

These episodes revealed two inept politicos harming themselves, but the episodes cannot match the ineptitude demonstrated by current poll leader Hilton.

 

His campaign office sent out a press release one day after Newsom shut down the I-5 freeway, the high-speed coastal road running 19 miles between San Onofre and Oceanside.

 

The reason was a celebration of the Marine Corps’ upcoming 250^th anniversary featuring Vice President JD Vance. It featured live artillery fire over the freeway. Despite assurances from the Marines that this could not happen, Newsom feared firing artillery shells over the freeway might cause accidents and even deaths.

This drew derision from Hilton the day after the closure. Said Hilton, “(The) I-5 scandal was the final straw. For months, it has been clear that the focus of Gavin Newsom’s attention has been running for president. Instead of an actual governor, California for the last few months has had a social media manager focused on dopey posts …

 

       “This weekend was the final straw…Newsom caused real harm to Californians with his pathetic, divisive stunt: needlessly closing the I-5 so he could blame President Trump for the resulting chaos.”

 

     In fact, Newsom’s action likely spared Californians a lot of grief. By the time Hilton’s campaign sent his release, Newsom’s worries had been proven valid.

 

     This became clear after one chunk of shrapnel from an artillery shell fired over the I-5 landed on the hood of a Highway Patrol cruiser parked on an off-ramp and some more hit a police motorcycle in the Vance motorcade. Other shrapnel landed on the freeway.

 

     Imagine the havoc had traffic been moving at its usual 75-80 mph pace along the same stretch of 10-lane highway. Consider the traffic jam that might have ensued. Imagine the rear enders and potential injuries averted because the road was closed.

 

     Yet Hilton blithely sent out his press release a day later, when the shrapnel shower had been widely documented. He led the entire field by one point in the latest Emerson College poll, but that doesn’t figure to last once voters learn of his press release faux pas.

 

     Hilton’s office did not respond to requests for an explanation of why the press release went out when it did and has carried on as if nothing happened. No apology, with phone calls and emails not returned. When will rivals start advertising Hilton’s blunder?

 

     In the end, Hilton’s main gripe about Newsom was proven false. It should be difficult for any candidate to survive this, let alone a California Republican hoping to make next year’s runoff by unifying the GOP vote around himself.

 

     Talk about a season of self-destruction.

 

  -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.

CAN NAMING RIGHTS, PLUS $1B PER YEAR, RESCUE THE BULLET TRAIN?

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
1720 OAK STREET, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90405
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2025, OR THEREAFTER

 

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“CAN NAMING RIGHTS, PLUS $1B PER YEAR, RESCUE THE BULLET TRAIN?”

Imagine the “Google Switching Center.” Now try on the “Sony Pictures In-Railroad Entertainment System.” And the “Morton’s Steakhouse dining car.”

 

Naming rights have rescued major California businesses before. Now the chief of the often-belittled California High Speed Rail Authority (HSR) thinks they might be at least part of the answer to keeping the half-built bullet train system going long enough to actually carry passengers. Call this Part 2 of HSR’s survival strategy. Just make sure much of the fees are collected in advance and that they’re enough to make a difference.

 

Frequently called a boondoggle, the train has already achieved Part 1 of its fiscal plan, an absolute must after President Trump cancelled $4 billion in federal grant money for the poorly planned but partly-built project.

 

That happened when Gov. Gavin Newsom this fall signed a new law called SB 840, giving the train project one-fourth of the state’s take (or about $1 billion a year) for 20 years from cap-and-trade fees of companies that pay to continue their polluting ways. That won’t build much in a project whose cost is now estimated at over $100 billion. But it’s decent seed money.

 

HSR director Ian Choudri first floated the idea of leveraging that money’s presence to help sell naming rights. Some laughed. But Inglewood’s year-old Intuit Center brought in about $500 million for its naming and Aspiration Partners, a financial technology firm that went bankrupt in March, reportedly offered $1 billion. And the Intuit Center cannot even move.

 

If it costs that much to plaster your name on a building, imagine how much could be raised by selling naming rights for a constantly-running luxury train. When finished, the project is to link San Diego and Sacramento. Naming rights could be sold for everything from the entire system to engines, rail cars, stations, and even individual seats, along with exclusive rights to advertise inside train cars. Names could also be advertised beside each mile of track.

 

Consider what might have happened to the former Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles, home to the basketball Lakers and Sparks and the hockey Kings. When Staples office supplies removed its name and money from the building, it might have turned moribund, without an identity.

 

But the Singapore-based Crypto.com exchange for bitcoin and related financial products stepped in. Now the arena has a name and $35 million yearly in naming fees, the largest such deal anywhere. It’s about double what AT&T pays for naming rights on the Dallas Cowboys’ stadium.

 

Now think of the bullet train, which appears more desperate for cash than any sports facility.

 

This project is many years behind schedule in carrying its first passenger, and even then, it will likely be in 2033 and only between Merced and Bakersfield.

 

The original plan voters approved was to open the Los Angeles to San Francisco run by 2020.

 

The first leg of this system will now cost an estimated $35 billion, more than the original budget for the entire plan.

 

Enter naming rights. Besides putting their name on various parts of the project, companies could buy development rights for land around stations. They could fund and name tunnels and perhaps charge for each passing train. Or they could buy rights to name stretches of rail. All this could add up to a lot.

 

Whether it could produce the sums still needed to build out the system is strictly speculative. But Choudri notes that all environmental reviews for the Los Angeles to San Francisco run are in hand and a rail system suitable for high speed operations already exists between San Francisco and San Jose.

 

HSR officials note they have built 54 structures and laid 70 miles of track, almost half what’s needed for the Merced to Bakersfield run.

 

The real question is whether this system can ever overcome its founding mistake, which was to build essentially parallel to Highway 99, rather than on the often-wide state-owned median strip of Interstate 5 along the western side of the San Joaquin Valley.

 

In short, can it overcome the greed of politicians who insisted this system run through towns they represented, rather than open spaces devoid of job-seeking constituents?

 

   -30-

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

 

SB 79 WON’T SOON HELP MANY CALIFORNIANS

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2025 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
"SB 79 WON’T SOON HELP MANY CALIFORNIANS"

 

By far the most attention this in this fall’s state legislative session went to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to counteract a Texas move to convert Democratic House seats to Republican via a special redistricting election early in November.

 

But another new law just signed by Newsom will probably prove far more consequential for the future of California’s cities.

 

It’s called SB 79 and once it plays out, will leave many California skylines altered in the direction of population-dense high-rise buildings.

 

Yes, multi-unit apartment construction is down statewide this year from last year’s figures by about 20 percent (based on partial numbers for 2025), making 2024 building look like it may have been on steroids. That's largely because new apartments today need $4,000-$5,000 monthly to break even.

 

But SB 79 has the long-term potential to change things in the name of housing density that might help solve the state’s shortage. The problem is that it probably won’t do that, because the vast majority (about 70 percent) of units being built are to be rented or sold at market rates, rather than seeking occupancy as subsidized affordable housing. Given that more than half of all California renters pay upwards of 30 percent of income for housing, relatively few can afford what are called market rates. So thousands of units built in the last three years now lie vacant, while shortages persist elsewhere.

 

Here's what SB 79 sponsor Scott Wiener, a Democratic San Francisco state senator, aims to do: Create a series of mini-downtowns near major transit stops with up to nine-story buildings gradually dropping off in all directions into two-and-three story construction, often within current single-family areas nearby.

 

Because of resistance from rural lawmakers, the upzoning near transit hubs will only apply in eight urban counties. When big changes come, they will be in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Clara, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo and Sacramento counties.

 

Height limits will depend on just how much bus and light rail traffic a stop handles. But for the busiest stops (designated as “Tier 1”), no local government can limit heights to less than 75 feet for buildings within a quarter-mile of the stop.

 

No one knows how many of these buildings will actually rise over the next few years. If developers doubt they can make profits off market-rate units mixed with a lesser number of affordable ones, they won’t build very much. Many have such qualms due to the pricing problem. So the trouble with much new construction in California is that most Californians can’t afford to live in it.

 

Two places whose nature this law won’t change soon are Altadena and the Pacific Palisades district of Los Angeles, both decimated in last January’s firestorms. Unless transit agencies run major new routes through them, they will be exempt from the top heights. There are no such plans today. 

 

Then there’s the matter of pricing out many who now live near transit stops. As a general rule, these immediate areas are less attractive and less desirable than nearby single-family zones, so rents and prices are lower there. But tear down existing housing and replace it with more modern and expansive housing, and current residents could be priced out.

 

But when Democratic Assembly member Rick Zbur of West Los Angeles argued SB 79 would be destructive for existing lower-cost neighborhoods, he was laughed off, while the bill passed the state Senate with applause from most legislators present.

 

Also ignored were complaints that SB 79 removes any authority many existing homeowners have over their surroundings.

 

These kinds of reasons were behind the 8-5 vote by which the Los Angeles city council voted to oppose the measure. The council called for Los Angeles to be exempted because it already has a state-approved housing plan, with thousands of units underway.

 

But labor unions backed AB 79, pretty much all the Legislature needed as most Democratic legislators get a big slice of their campaign money from organized labor.

 

The upshot is that SB 79 will solve few immediate housing problems, while not helping the many Californians who will continue to find new housing priced beyond their means.

-30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

 

“DID HARRIS WRITE HERSELF OUT OF THE ’28 RACE?

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2025, OR THEREAFTER

 

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

 “DID HARRIS WRITE HERSELF OUT OF THE ’28 RACE?”

 

Two absolute essentials must accompany any candidate who seeks to make a serious run for president, or even lesser but still powerful jobs like governor or U.S. senator:

 

No one can make a serious run without serious funding. So multiple sources of big money are a must. So are major allies. Not only do they go on the road as surrogates at times, but they recruit other supporters, some of whom provide the first essential, big money.

 

For a candidate to alienate the most powerful individuals in their political party even before a race gets going seriously is an unheard-of no-no.

 

But that is what former Vice President Kamala Harris may have done in her campaign memoir 107 Days, published in a season when many candidates issue bland autobiographical tomes that purport to carry important messages aimed to draw millions of voters. Most don’t attract many voters, while also containing few important messages.

 

The new Harris book is different. It’s almost like a deliberate effort to alienate potential supporters and snub her nose at the money they might be capable of raising.

 

Take her complaint about Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who she briefly considered as her vice presidential running mate in 2024: He was initially reluctant or non-committal when she asked for his endorsement just after ex-President Joe Biden gave up the Democratic nomination for his office and handed it off to Harris.

 

Did Pritzker want a day or two to determine whether the party would accept Biden’s edict and quickly anoint Harris as the candidate? Did he want to be offered an incentive?

Both would have been reasonable responses to Harris’ quick ascension.

 

But his pace did not satisfy Harris, a fact now announced in print. So much for Pritzker’s support if Harris runs again in 2028.

 

And there’s her response to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, her fellow endorsee of former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and her longtime supposed friend and stablemate (they’ve shared campaign consultants). 

 

She claims he didn’t take her first call after Biden dropped out, texting back “Hiking. Will call back.” He didn’t do that. So even though he did issue a full endorsement within hours, that was too slow for Harris, who apparently expects her colleagues to ask “how high” the moment she says “jump.”

 

If this sounds like minor byplay, that’s what it should have been. It probably wasn’t worth a mention in her book, or any other, but reflects an irritability that hasn’t worked well for any modern presidential candidate except Donald Trump. The rest have all tried to appear universally amiable.

 

Harris sprinkled other, similar, bon mots though her book. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, whom she considered for vice president, is “overly ambitious (and) confident,” Harris writes, and “would want to be in the room for every major decision.” Shouldn’t any veep want that?

 

Then there’s Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and Biden’s transportation secretary. He would have been “too big a risk,” as she didn’t believe the electorate was prepared to back both a gay man (Buttigieg) and a black woman (herself) simultaneously. But she writes Buttigieg was actually her first choice for vice president, even though she picked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. What now, if Walz is reelected next year?

 

If someone wanted to alienate powerful Democrats, it would be difficult to do it more thoroughly than Harris seems to have tried to do. Mark Kelly, senator from Arizona, “lacks political battle scars.” Does that mean he’s too popular, for he certainly has other kinds of scars as the steadfast, supportive husband of onetime assassination target Gabby Giffords.

 

All of which raises the question of whether Harris really wants to run for president again. Would she have criticized so many powerful Democrats if she were hungry for both their support and the further backing they could bring along in 2028?

 

Harris plainly didn’t want to be governor of California, or go through the rough campaign that she’d need to win that job. Now she’s also given voters plenty of reason to wonder how much she wants to be president.

 

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net