On that note, when I see news covering Cali state worker telework, they love to go to the streets and find everyone they can to interview who's attitude seems to be "fuck you, I can't work from home so you shouldn't either"

I can't help but feel like that's intentional to turn people against remote workers

I mean... Even if they're just selfish assholes, do they not get that traffic is getting worse again because agencies and businesses are forcing return to office? That more people working remote is actually good for people who can't for whatever reason too?

Sorry, tangent; but GN's attitude on this has yet another incredibly frustrating and bad bit of policy from him

I really hope he doesn't run for president, and if he does, that he gets shut down early in the primary.

"We're looking forward not back"

His argument is that other republican states will use this as precedent for disobeying federal law, I'm just not sure how he hasn't realized Republicans don't care about precedent at all

I'll attempt to suss it out a little bit, as you seem to have given his argument it's due, even if it doesn't click for you. It doesn't for me either. My cynicism tells me that, if he weren't eying a White House run, he would have just signed it. However, as pretty much the presumptive establishment Dem favorite, he's been listening to the ghouls in the DNC who say things like "Trans rights are a losing issue, we have to divest ourselves of 'fringe' politics". As a smokescreen for that bit of realpolitik, he is couching his stance in terms of "eroding executive authority".

My understanding (IANAL in Cali or otherwise) is that California law currently grants the office of the Governor exclusive discretionary power in whether to honor extradition requests from other states (provided the governor is not otherwise compelled to respond in a certain manner e.g. a federal court issues the request or something). Newsome's argument is that it is improper for him, a term-limited outgoing governor, to "willingly" divest the office of an exclusive discretionary power like that. It's similar, in principle, to the arguments some years ago regarding the Senate confirmation of political appointees during a President's second term. I.e. it wasn't "fair" that a lame duck might have a chance to stuff the government with "their guys", possibly sabotaging the incoming President of a different party. Not exactly the same, but the principle stands, I think.

Of course, when McConnell made those arguments, he was lying through his teeth, as is Newsome, I assume. It's just a convenient cover story that makes the common clay of the New West (y'know...morons!) think, "wow, that's a level-headed so and so with a mind for good governance and bipartisan cooperation, that sure is something that this country could use!"

Where the argument falls down is that, as you pointed out, the Legislature passed this. He already had the perfect smokescreen to say, "there's nothing I could do, I'm no loonie lefty, but the people of California spoke through their elected representatives and I had no right to veto it merely because it slightly reduced the power of the executive office." He chose not to, because he's deathly afraid of the pro-maga-ganda machine painting him as a coastal elite out of touch with middle America, as if that's not going to be their exact tactic against him regardless of his record. I'd stop just short of him saying he's eroding the Legislature's authority though. He's using the veto power of his office as it's intended. In theory, overriding the passage of legislation popular enough to make it through that whole process will harm him politically, which is happening to an extent. This is a biased space, obviously, but clearly his decision is unpopular here. Whether or not it helps or hurts him in primaries or the general remains to be seen.

I would hope that the legislature could override his veto, but I am not familiar enough with California state politics to know if they have the votes.

Joe Biden Roombas back onto a debate stage after bumping into several walls

Harris said she's open to running again. So that's at least 2.

Charlie Brown moment, it happens.

I mean this isn't even just not progressive, this is collaboration with fascist states to do fascism.

He's the one money will support but there is precedent for that to not matter. See Clinton v Obama, Jeb v Trump and various smaller races.

Thankfully he is not favored currently, but its very close. I can promise you I will gladly devote a chunk of my life to volunteering for a candidate running against him in the primaries, to keep him out of the white house. Send him back to the Napa vineyards where scum like this belongs.

He has to win a primary first.

He would be really upset about you saying that if he could read.

I’ve seen Gavin Gruesome around before.

These people?

which these days is basically the Right

By European standards, the American center is on par with AfD, Örebro, and Borgernes Parti. Gavin Newsom is a right wing fascist.

Do people who call themselves leftists support him?

If they still have your vote they don't have a single molecule of a fuck to give about your disappointment.

Hopefully he doesn’t make it past the primaries. Unfortunately if he does and he’s up against a MAGA Republican, there’s only one clear choice.

Go help campaign for progressive candidates before the primaries! Come November 2028, it may be too late.

Just one more neolib bro! We'll get someone worth a damn, you just gotta support one more shithead I promise!!

Republicans deserve to be yelled at, and if it's newsom or vance and you choose vance by not voting, you're a republican and deserve to be yelled at.

I’d rather eat a bag of Aids dicks.

Looking forward to President Vance!