Newsom responds to Trump's gutter politics
Hackman plays a take-no-prisoners FBI agent, Rupert Anderson, who is investigating the disappearance of three young civil rights workers in racially segregated 1964 Mississippi. His partner and boss is stick-by-the-rules agent Alan Ward, played by Willem Dafoe.
The 1988 film is loosely based on a true story.
The two agents eventually find the victims' murdered bodies and apprehend the Ku Klux Klan killers after Anderson persuades Ward to discard his high-road rule book in dealing with uncooperative local white folks.
'Don't drag me into your gutter, Mr. Anderson,' Ward sternly tells his underling initially.
Anderson shouts back: 'These people are crawling out of the SEWER, MR. WARD! Maybe the gutter's where we oughta be.'
And it's where they go. Only then do they solve the case.
Newsom contends Trump is playing gutter politics by pressuring Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the GOP-controlled Legislature to redraw the state's U.S. House seats in an effort to elect five additional Republicans in next year's midterm elections. House seats normally are redrawn only at the beginning of a decade after the decennial census.
Democrats need to gain just three net seats to retake control of the House and end the GOP's one-party rule of the federal government.
Trump is trying to prevent that by browbeating Texas and other red states into gerrymandering their Democrat-held House districts into GOP winners.
Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas' 38 House seats. Democrats have 12.
In California, it's just the opposite — even more so. Out of 52 seats, Democrats outnumber Republicans 43 to 9, with room to make it even more lopsided.
'We could make it so that only four Republicans are left,' says Sacramento-based redistricting guru Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc.
Mitchell already is crafting potential new maps in case Newsom follows through with his threat to retaliate against Texas by redrawing California's districts to help Democrats gain five seats, neutralizing Republican gains in the Lone Star State.
Newsom and the Legislature would be seizing redistricting responsibility from an independent citizens' commission that voters created in 2010. They took the task away from lawmakers because the politicians were acting only in their own self-interest, effectively choosing their own voters. As they do in Texas and most states, particularly red ones.
But the governor and Democrats would be ignoring California voters' will — at least as stated 15 years ago.
And Newsom would be down in the political gutter with Trump on redistricting. But that doesn't seem to bother him.
'They're playing by a different set of rules,' Newsom recently told reporters, referring to Trump and Republicans. 'They can't win by the traditional game. So they want to change the game. We can act holier than thou. We could sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be. Or we can recognize the existential nature that is the moment.'
Newsom added that 'everything has changed' since California voters banned gerrymandering 15 years ago.
That's indisputable given Trump's bullying tactics and his inhumane domestic policies.
'I'm not going to be the guy that said, 'I could have, would have, should have,'' Newsom continued. 'I'm not going to be passive at this moment. I'm not going to look at my kids in the eyes and say, 'I was a little timid.''
Newsom's own eyes, of course, are on the White House and a potential 2028 presidential bid. He sees a national opportunity now to attract frustrated Democratic voters who believe that party leaders aren't fighting hard enough against Trump.
Newsom continued to echo Hackman's script Friday at a news conference in Sacramento with Texas Democratic legislators.
Referring to Trump and Texas Republicans, Newsom asserted: 'They're not screwing around. We cannot afford to screw around. We have to fight fire with fire.'
But yakking about redrawing California's congressional maps is easy. Actually doing it would be exceedingly difficult.
'Texas can pass a plan tomorrow. California cannot,' says Tony Quinn, a former Republican consultant on legislative redistricting.
Unlike in California, there's no Texas law that forbids blatant gerrymandering.
California's Constitution requires redistricting by the independent commission.
Moreover, a 1980s state Supreme Court ruling allows only one redistricting each decade, Quinn says.
Trying to gerrymander California congressional districts through legislation without first asking the voters' permission would be criminally stupid.
Newsom would need to call a special election for November and persuade voters to temporarily suspend the Constitution, allowing the Legislature to redraw the districts.
Or the Legislature could place a gerrymandered plan on the ballot and seek voter approval. But that would be risky. A specific plan could offer several targets for the opposition — the GOP and do-gooder groups.
In either case, new maps would need to be drawn by the end of the year to fit the June 2026 primary elections.
Mitchell says polling shows that the independent commission is very popular with voters. Still, he asserts, 'there's something in the water right now. There's potential that voters will not want to let Trump run ramshackle while we're being Pollyannish.'
'The reality is that a lot of Democrats would hit their own thumb with a hammer if they thought it would hurt Trump more.'
Mitchell also says that California could out-gerrymander Texas by not only weakening current GOP seats but by strengthening competitive Democratic districts. Texas doesn't have that opportunity, he says, because its districts already have been heavily gerrymandered.
Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio says Newsom is 'trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube' and doubts it will work. 'Unilaterally disarming was a mistake.
'But Newsom's not wrong. They play hardball. We don't.'
Newsom and California Democrats should fight Trump and Texas Republicans in the MAGA gutter, using all weapons available.
As Hackman's character also says: 'Don't mean s— to have a gun unless you (sic) ready to use it.'
The must-read: Texas Republicans aim to redraw House districts at Trump's urging, but there's a risk The TK: The Age-Checked Internet Has Arrived The L.A. Times Special: Trump's top federal prosecutor in L.A. struggles to secure indictments in protest cases
Until next week,George Skelton
—Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Solve the daily Crossword
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trump issues order imposing new global tariff rates effective Aug. 7
According to the text of the first order, the Trump administration is maintaining its 10 percent so-called baseline tariff on countries where the U.S. has a trade surplus — i.e. it sells more American products to those countries than it imports from them. And it officially imposes the 15 percent rate that Trump agreed to set as part of negotiations with leading trading partners like the European Union, Japan and South Korea. The Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia also reached tentative agreements with the administration that set their duties at 19-20 percent. Other countries, mainly smaller economies, face far higher rates, topping out at 41 percent for Syria, which is emerging from a civil war, and 40 percent for Myanmar, which is still in the midst of one. The Southeast Asian nation of Laos also faces a 40 percent tariff, and Iraq will be hit with a 35 percent duty. Bigger trading partners like Switzerland also face a significant tariff hike — to 39 percent. Trump also signed a second order raising tariffs on Canada, one of the country's biggest trading partners, from 25 to 35 percent for goods that are not compliant with an existing North American trade deal known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The senior official told reporters that Canada hasn't 'shown the same level of constructiveness that we've seen from the Mexican side.' Trump announced earlier Thursday that he was maintaining the 25 percent tariff on Mexico for another 90 days after a phone call with their president, Claudia Sheinbaum. Higher tariffs on Canada take effect Friday. The executive actions suggests that Trump decided to punish countries that he did not believe offered enough concessions since the president first threatened to impose his 'reciprocal' tariffs on April 2. 'Some trading partners have agreed to, or are on the verge of agreeing to, meaningful trade and security commitments with the United States, thus signaling their sincere intentions to permanently remedy the trade barriers,' the global order says. 'Other trading partners, despite having engaged in negotiations, have offered terms that, in my judgment, do not sufficiently address imbalances in our trading relationship or have failed to align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national-security matters,' 'There are also some trading partners that have failed to engage in negotiations with the United States or to take adequate steps to align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters,' it continues. White House officials said Thursday night that they expect to strike additional agreements with countries ahead of the new Aug. 7 implementation date for the tariffs. 'We have some deals, and I don't want to get ahead of the president on those deals,' the senior administration official told reporters. 'I'll just say generally, we have more to come.' Taiwan is hoping to be one of those countries. The semiconductor powerhouse faces a 20 percent tariff in a week's time, but in a statement released late Thursday, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te suggested the rate was 'provisional.' 'Due to the procedural arrangement of the negotiations, the Taiwan-U.S. sides have not yet concluded the final meeting. Therefore, the U.S. has temporarily announced a 20% tariff rate for Taiwan,' President Lai said. 'Once an agreement is reached in the future, there is hope that the tariff rate can be further lowered. Both sides will also continue negotiations on supply chain cooperation and issues related to Section 232 tariffs.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?'
