Speaker 1: I'm of two minds on the Kamala Harris for California
Speaker 1: governor speculation, and it seems like this speculation is really
Speaker 1: ramping up. There are multiple stories out now where they're
Speaker 1: detailing that Harris actually kind of has three options in
Speaker 1: front of her that she's considering. She's considering, on the
Speaker 1: one hand, running for governor of California in twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: running for the presidency in twenty twenty eight, or just
Speaker 1: kind of taking a break from politics for a while.
Speaker 1: Running for governor in twenty twenty six kind of precludes
Speaker 1: the possibility of running for president in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of sort of the straight media
Speaker 1: discussions of it and the left wing discussions of it.
Speaker 1: The discussions of it among left wingers are not not
Speaker 1: super grounded in reality, because I think the reality is
Speaker 1: the Kamala Harris is not a particularly adept leader in
Speaker 1: a lot of ways. I think those of us from
Speaker 1: the right are able without as much with our without
Speaker 1: as much bias, although I guess we're biased the other
Speaker 1: way to think that she's not a very good leader,
Speaker 1: but I'd say we're correct. I don't think she's a
Speaker 1: very good leader. I don't think she's demonstrated much great
Speaker 1: leadership capacity. But a lot of the straight reporting is
Speaker 1: whether whether you know she'd be is she up for
Speaker 1: the challenge of you know, the California is facing very
Speaker 1: serious problems, and she's wondering if she's up for the challenge,
Speaker 1: and she's she's trying to immerse herself in what the
Speaker 1: problems facing California are so that she can understand blah
Speaker 1: blah blah, blah blah blah. Now I'm sort of two minds.
Speaker 1: My one mind is I don't think any Democrat can
Speaker 1: be successful because I don't know that any Democrat has
Speaker 1: kind of the political strength needed to tick off the
Speaker 1: kinds of essential power brokers you need on your side
Speaker 1: if you're going to be a Democratic governor of California.
Speaker 1: The powers that be in California politics want things to
Speaker 1: be the way they are for a lot of really
Speaker 1: essential problems we face. Whether it's water shortage, whether it's wildfires,
Speaker 1: whether it's insufficient construction of new homes and therefore housing
Speaker 1: prices being too high, energy shortages, gas prices being too high,
Speaker 1: cost of living being too high. A lot of that
Speaker 1: stuff is the result of a large array of environmental
Speaker 1: and pro labor policies, especially a lot of the stuff
Speaker 1: about construction and new home construction and building new homes,
Speaker 1: building new businesses. All of that is the result of
Speaker 1: why does it take so long? Why does it take
Speaker 1: four years in California to build an apartment complex that
Speaker 1: would take two years to build in Texas, And therefore
Speaker 1: adding enormous extra layers of costs and outlays of loans
Speaker 1: and blah blah blah blah blah blah outlays of time
Speaker 1: and worker time and construction equipment time and blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah blah and more environmental reviews. That
Speaker 1: happens because of California's array of environmental laws, in California's
Speaker 1: array of pro labor laws that just make construction that
Speaker 1: much more expensive. And that's the thing. Everyone knows that
Speaker 1: this is the infuriating thing about California politics. There are
Speaker 1: all these problems that everyone understands what the problems are,
Speaker 1: They know how to fix them, they just don't want to.
Speaker 1: They don't want to because the solutions are things that
Speaker 1: would anger labor or environmentalists. That's it. We all understand
Speaker 1: why gas prices are high in California. It's because of
Speaker 1: environmental regulations, various kinds of environmental regulations. You got capentrate,
Speaker 1: and most specifically, you've got a California specific blend of
Speaker 1: gasoline that it has to be made in order to
Speaker 1: fit California regulatory standards. This results in California being a
Speaker 1: kind of gas island where our supply chain to refine
Speaker 1: and then sell gas is a California specific supply chain.
Speaker 1: We can't use the gas that's sold in Arizona, Nevada,
Speaker 1: or Oklahoma or whatever. So that is a drastic added cost,
Speaker 1: added costs to the gas companies for those refineries and
Speaker 1: that supply chain. And now we've got two refineries that
Speaker 1: are closing down in California. That's going to lead in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six they're gonna be parts of California that
Speaker 1: are going to be paying over eight dollars a gallon
Speaker 1: for gas. Why. Well, because Gavin Newsom passed a stupid
Speaker 1: los saying that refineries had to maintain a certain artificially
Speaker 1: high level of gasoline at all times in order to
Speaker 1: avoid price spikes, which the gas companies told him. That's
Speaker 1: incredibly difficult for us to do. That's going to be
Speaker 1: very expensive for us to do. You're just going to
Speaker 1: permanently keep prices high, and maybe we make the business
Speaker 1: decision that we're not going to maintain refineries in California
Speaker 1: as many of our refineries in California anymore, because it
Speaker 1: costs us a lot of money to maintain these refineries.
Speaker 1: It's like three hundred million dollars a year for maintaining them.
Speaker 1: And if we're not going to make enough money, we're
Speaker 1: just gonna shut these refineries down. And new some sort
Speaker 1: of decided to play chicken with them and lost got
Speaker 1: run over by the truck. The refineries are moving out
Speaker 1: of California, and now our gas prices are going to
Speaker 1: go up enormously because we won't have as many refineries.
Speaker 1: Supply will be down, demand will still stay where it is,
Speaker 1: cost will go up, all right, So on the one
Speaker 1: but that's the thing, so we know exactly how to
Speaker 1: fix the problem with gas. Just replace all of our
Speaker 1: body of environmental regulation that we have on gasoline and
Speaker 1: replace it with Oklahoma's body of regulations, replace it with
Speaker 1: Oregon's body of regulations. If you want a blue state,
Speaker 1: to make yourself feel better, like it's not hard, it's
Speaker 1: not rocket science. That's how you would lower gas prices
Speaker 1: in California, make us not a gas island anymore. But
Speaker 1: we don't do it. We don't do it because it
Speaker 1: would anger the environmentalists and it would anger their billionaire donors.
Speaker 1: So there's a part of me that says, I don't
Speaker 1: care if Kamala Harris or Shmamala Harris runs for governor
Speaker 1: of California. Kamala Harris won't fix that problem. She won't
Speaker 1: fix that problem unless she's willing to anger all of
Speaker 1: the donors who put into office, Unless she's willing to
Speaker 1: anger this key political constituency of the environmentalist. They don't
Speaker 1: have a lot of votes, but they have a ton
Speaker 1: of money. Unless she's willing to tick them all off
Speaker 1: early on in her time in office. And if she's
Speaker 1: going to run for governor, she's gonna have to work
Speaker 1: with these people for eight years. Unless she does that,
Speaker 1: the problem of high gas prices won't be solved. And
Speaker 1: I don't think she's got the political conviction or courage
Speaker 1: to really do that. I don't think any Democrat has
Speaker 1: the political courage and conviction to do that. Javier Basera
Speaker 1: has pretty much said so Javierbsera, who's running for governor California,
Speaker 1: the former HHS secretary, former Attorney General of California, he
Speaker 1: has pretty much just said when he was directly asked
Speaker 1: in an interview in Los Angeles on a local TV
Speaker 1: news station down there, if you're elected governor, you know,
Speaker 1: what would you do differently from the prior to governors
Speaker 1: and specifically talking about like cost of living and stuff,
Speaker 1: and he refused to say any specific policy he would
Speaker 1: do differently. He just said he would gather a bunch
Speaker 1: of experts together, put all their ideas on the table,
Speaker 1: and then he kept using the metaphor that he would
Speaker 1: scrub out their ideas and use whatever the best idea
Speaker 1: remaining was, scrub it out. I don't know that metaphor,
Speaker 1: I don't think makes a ton of sense. So basically
Speaker 1: what Bisarah admitted was I'm going to do what other
Speaker 1: people tell me to do. I'm going to do what
Speaker 1: quote the experts tell me to do, and presumably environmentalists
Speaker 1: would be the experts if he's trying to figure out
Speaker 1: what he's going to do about high gas prices. So
Speaker 1: I don't think it matters. I don't think any governor
Speaker 1: of any Democrat governor of California, if they are beholden
Speaker 1: to environmentalists and they're billionaire donors, which they will be,
Speaker 1: I don't think I think any Democrat is going to
Speaker 1: do that. So that's my on the one hand. Here's
Speaker 1: my on the other hand, though, with these same big
Speaker 1: time donors. Okay, whom do Democrat politicians fear, rank and
Speaker 1: file members of the Assembly and State Senate, the governor.
Speaker 1: Whom do they fear from the environmentalist side. They don't
Speaker 1: really fear the environmentalist groups themselves. I think whom they
Speaker 1: actually fear are the big time donors who give to
Speaker 1: the environmentalist groups. That's what they're afraid of. And at
Speaker 1: a certain point, problems in California might just get so
Speaker 1: large that even those people will eventually say, all right,
Speaker 1: all right, you can change this. Like this is going
Speaker 1: to cause a disaster, all right, you can change it.
Speaker 1: We're seeing an example of this right now. The California
Speaker 1: State Assembly just passed AB six zero nine, a bill
Speaker 1: introduced by Buffy Wicks, who's a Democrat Assembly member from Oakland,
Speaker 1: to basically amend SEQUA the California Environmental Quality Act. The
Speaker 1: California Environmental Quality Act was passed by Ronald Reagan, but
Speaker 1: has been maintained by generations of Democrat politicians and Democrat
Speaker 1: and liberal activists who have weaponized it to stop construction
Speaker 1: on anything they don't like, anything that might, maybe, somehow
Speaker 1: possibly result in more emissions. The most ridiculous example of
Speaker 1: it I ever saw was that in the town of Pixley, California,
Speaker 1: a left wing nonprofit group used SEQUA to stop the
Speaker 1: construction of a green energy, zero emissions hydrogen power plant
Speaker 1: on the grounds that it would bring too much truck
Speaker 1: traffic to Pixley, which I don't know if you've ever
Speaker 1: driven through Pixley, but all it is is truck traffic.
Speaker 1: It's a pit stop on the ninety nine. They are
Speaker 1: about the whole I don't know that there's a single
Speaker 1: part of the town that's more than a quarter mile
Speaker 1: away from a half mile away from the ninety nine.
Speaker 1: There are about one hundred million trucks driving through large
Speaker 1: portions of Pixley every single day. And the idea that oh,
Speaker 1: a few trucks will park there to drop off hydrogen
Speaker 1: for this power plant, and oh, will that'll that's what's
Speaker 1: going to really deteriorate the environment, the air quality around Pixley.
Speaker 1: Give me a break anyway. Anyway, Buffy Wicks introduced this
Speaker 1: bill to a mend SEQUA basically to say we're going
Speaker 1: to not require SEQUA and sequa's requirements for SEQUA has
Speaker 1: all these requirements that basically, if you're starting a new
Speaker 1: construction project, you have to create a very very large,
Speaker 1: very costly, very elaborate environmental impact report, and you prepare it,
Speaker 1: you submit it, it has to get approved, and then still
Speaker 1: other people can fly in to sue you to say
Speaker 1: that your environmental impact report is inadequate. So it's a
Speaker 1: major hindrance to construction, not only because it's very expensive
Speaker 1: and takes a really long time bunch of lawyers to
Speaker 1: make the environmental impact report, but you have this huge
Speaker 1: litigation threat that can stop your whole construction project, your
Speaker 1: whole housing development, your whole warehouse that you're building, whatever,
Speaker 1: it can stop it cold because of one Yahoo left
Speaker 1: wing nonprofit group flying in to say that this is
Speaker 1: going to have a harmful environmental impact. So Buffy Wicks
Speaker 1: introduces this bill. Finally, a Democrat from Oakland introduces a
Speaker 1: bill to say, hey, let's not require this for urban
Speaker 1: infill housing. So an urban area, you're in the middle
Speaker 1: of a city, you have a vacant lot, You're just
Speaker 1: doing an infill of a vacant lot. You're not expanding
Speaker 1: the boundaries of the city or going out into suburbs
Speaker 1: or anything. You're putting in housing in an area that's
Speaker 1: already surrounded by development. Which, for some reason, somehow, the
Speaker 1: research has come around to say that maybe that's not
Speaker 1: actually environmentally harmful. I don't know how that works. Maybe
Speaker 1: this is just the left rationalizing things. It just passed
Speaker 1: that bill just past the California State Assembly sixty three
Speaker 1: to nothing, with the Republicans joining in and obviously a
Speaker 1: ton of Democrats joining it. Just to note, Democrats have
Speaker 1: sixty of the eighty seats in the California State Assembly,
Speaker 1: and I can't wait to see the Democrats all just
Speaker 1: erupting into rocket applause over Oh this is. It's so
Speaker 1: brave of the Democrats to decide to change their position
Speaker 1: and decide to you know, think more progressively about about
Speaker 1: this issue and not not be locked into the dogmas
Speaker 1: of the past and agree to reforming SEQUA in an
Speaker 1: environmentally responsible way, and everyone's gonna pat them and Newsome's
Speaker 1: gonna sign it, and he's gonna be all of his
Speaker 1: teeth and all of his veneers, and all of his
Speaker 1: teeth on top of his veneers, on top of his teeth,
Speaker 1: on top of his veneers, smiling for the camera. Oh see,
Speaker 1: I'm a moderate time guy should run for president. And
Speaker 1: everyone's gonna tear their rotator cuffs, patting themselves on the
Speaker 1: back for doing something that Republicans have been screaming at
Speaker 1: them to do for twenty years, Like this is not
Speaker 1: rocket science. Republicans have been saying the SEQUA is a horrible,
Speaker 1: disastrous impediment to development for forever. But oh, all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, when Democrats do it, Oh, now it's environmentally responsible.
Speaker 1: But even then they have to put this facade on
Speaker 1: this veneer on the oh that we're doing this environmentally responsibly. Now,
Speaker 1: that's maybe the only case for why Kamala Harris or
Speaker 1: any other Democratic governor might be successful. California will eventually
Speaker 1: be confronted by these horrible, insurmountable problems, and the problems
Speaker 1: are all a creation. So many of the problems have
Speaker 1: their roots in Democrat policies, and eventually they'll be faced
Speaker 1: with the impossibility of us carrying on with those policies.
Speaker 1: Democrats will eventually get the okay from their brokers for
Speaker 1: some of these things, for Democrats to change course on
Speaker 1: some of those policies, but it'll only be when those
Speaker 1: groups give them permission, and to the extent that those
Speaker 1: groups give them permission, and those groups might not always
Speaker 1: give them permission or all the way give them permission.
Speaker 1: So that's why I don't really see Kamala Harris as
Speaker 1: being anything special, especially good or especially bad. Relative. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think she's pretty bad. I think she's sort of
Speaker 1: I don't know that she's even as politically savvy or
Speaker 1: competent as Gavin Newsom is. Gavin Newsom has been a failure,
Speaker 1: not because he's an inept person necessarily, although I think
Speaker 1: he does kind of hate being governor and I think
Speaker 1: he's tired of the job. Newsom has been ineffective because
Speaker 1: he embraces all of these bad policies that are forced
Speaker 1: on him by the powers that be. You can see
Speaker 1: Newsom straining to get away from some of those policies
Speaker 1: on certain things, he's trying to get more water delivery
Speaker 1: to southern California, which is right in the current budget.
Speaker 1: He's trying to get more water delivery to southern California. Hmm.
Speaker 1: What could that be in response to maybe the horrible
Speaker 1: wildfires where they didn't have enough water to put it
Speaker 1: out and environmentalists are all ticked off at him for it. So,
Speaker 1: at any rate, I don't think Harris running or not
Speaker 1: matters that much because she's certainly not going to be
Speaker 1: anything impressive. She's not going to have the political courage
Speaker 1: to actually refute reject the dictates that come to her
Speaker 1: from the big time Democrat power brokers. When we return,
Speaker 1: has the Biden news kind of cooked Harris's chances of
Speaker 1: being president? Next on the John Girardi Show, here's a
Speaker 1: question I'm wondering about the Biden, the various Biden scandals
Speaker 1: and Kamala Harris. What did she know and when did
Speaker 1: she know it? And how that could impact her kind
Speaker 1: of desire possibly to run for president in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1: Let's recall the three options that are before Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: right now, and all this different reporting is all affirming
Speaker 1: the same thing. This was kind of in the news
Speaker 1: before the Jake Tapper book got released and the Biden
Speaker 1: cancer diagnosis got released, that Harris Harris is struggling. Harris
Speaker 1: is internally struggling. It sounds like she's got analysis paralysis.
Speaker 1: I don't know why it would take her this long
Speaker 1: to figure it out, but that's just me. Harris is
Speaker 1: the struggling between three options. Run for governor of California,
Speaker 1: run for president in twenty twenty eight, or take a
Speaker 1: step back from politics altogether. With all this Biden news
Speaker 1: coming out and the left beginning to acknowledge it, and
Speaker 1: the left is still insisting on calling it a cover up,
Speaker 1: which which I hate. The phrase cover up cover up
Speaker 1: implies that no one everyone was duped, everyone was deceived,
Speaker 1: no one could have no one could have discovered it
Speaker 1: because of how expertly they hid. Oh, we were all here,
Speaker 1: we are here, we were all thinking. All of us
Speaker 1: here were thinking Biden was so sharp, and they just
Speaker 1: deceptively lied to us. So we no sixty percent of
Speaker 1: the country thought he was too old, like a super
Speaker 1: majority of the country saw it with their own eyes,
Speaker 1: and the media was so politically blinded by their desire
Speaker 1: for Trump to lose and for Biden therefore not to
Speaker 1: be bad, not to be in a bad way. That
Speaker 1: they just refused to acknowledge it, and they refused to
Speaker 1: investigate it when when the signs were like right there
Speaker 1: in front of them, including the her report, that the
Speaker 1: her transcript from Biden's interview with specially counsel Robert Heart,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And it makes me wonder, how does Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris fit into that if she runs for twenty twenty
Speaker 1: eight for office in twenty twenty eight, how many people
Speaker 1: on that debate stage you're gonna look at her and say, well,
Speaker 1: where the heck were you? Why weren't you initiating if
Speaker 1: he was in such a bad way, why didn't you
Speaker 1: initiate twenty fifth Amendment proceedings? Did you know he had cancer?
Speaker 1: Did you know he was senile? Surely you interacted with him.
Speaker 1: You must have seen something that's gonna be hard for her.
Speaker 1: All right, when we return, I want to envision the
Speaker 1: hypothetical twenty twenty eight Democrat primary debate stage with Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris Gavin Newsom, and we'll have some neutral, aggressive, non
Speaker 1: Biden person as a third party, maybe Josh Shapiro. I
Speaker 1: want to imagine what that's going to look like, and
Speaker 1: that'll be next on the show. I want to envision.
Speaker 1: I want to put the image in your in front
Speaker 1: of you. It's late in twenty twenty seven, maybe like
Speaker 1: December twenty twenty seven. It's the Democrat primary debate stage.
Speaker 1: We're hosting a Democratic Party primary. It's MSNBC or CNN
Speaker 1: or something. And we got a whole cast of characters there.
Speaker 1: We got we got Mayor Pete. We got Pete Budhagig
Speaker 1: up there. We got Josh Shapiro up there. We've got
Speaker 1: who else? Who else do we got? Maybe we got
Speaker 1: Gretchen Whitmer up there. We'll have someone who has no
Speaker 1: business being up there. Maybe we get I don't know,
Speaker 1: Katie Porter's up there, or someone ridiculous. And then we've
Speaker 1: got the two stars of the proceedings, maybe two or
Speaker 1: three stars of the proceedings. We got Josh Shapiro. And
Speaker 1: then we get Gavin Newsome and Kamala Harris there in
Speaker 1: the middle, all the spotlights shining on them. Now, if
Speaker 1: you're Josh Shapiro, and I have no great love for
Speaker 1: Josh Shapiro, A lot of people joke that he's kind
Speaker 1: of white Obama basically that he seems to have robbed,
Speaker 1: basically shamelessly stolen President Obama's speaking style from him, and
Speaker 1: just he's basically just trying to do an elaborate Barack
Speaker 1: Obama impression as a white guy. So and he's been
Speaker 1: pretty successful as a governor. I think he I mean,
Speaker 1: he's he got elected as governor of Pennsylvania, a state
Speaker 1: that Trump won. He I think made a good impression
Speaker 1: for himself as governor of Pennsylvania by how he received
Speaker 1: bonded to the shooting in Butler when President Trump was almost,
Speaker 1: you know, one inch away from being assassinated. I think
Speaker 1: he responded to that very well and in a very
Speaker 1: appropriate way, and that left a kind of a good
Speaker 1: taste in a lot of people's mouths. And I think
Speaker 1: he's I think he is well positioned to have kind
Speaker 1: of broad appeal, more so than pretty much any other Democrat.
Speaker 1: I don't think he's got kind of the negatives that
Speaker 1: like Gretchen Whitmer has or that Bodagich has, And I
Speaker 1: think he's actually might have some kind of bipartisan appeal.
Speaker 1: And he's the governor of the most important swing state
Speaker 1: in the Union. I think Democrats are probably still scratching
Speaker 1: their heads on why Kamala Harris decided to get the
Speaker 1: governor of Minnesota, a state that was not really in question,
Speaker 1: a state that she was never at jeopardy of losing
Speaker 1: over Shapiro. And the answer a lot of people have,
Speaker 1: the conclusion a lot of people jump to is that
Speaker 1: Harris was so insecure that she didn't want a vice
Speaker 1: president who would out Shiner. And certainly Tim Walls did
Speaker 1: not out Shiner, that's for sure. Now let's go on
Speaker 1: the let's go on here. Here we are on the
Speaker 1: debate stage, and Josh Shapiro turns to Kamala Harris, and
Speaker 1: you know, no love lost there, probably for not picking
Speaker 1: him to be a vice president. And this guy wants
Speaker 1: to be president of the United States. He's ambitious. And
Speaker 1: the critical thing is that someone like Josh Shapiro, he
Speaker 1: wasn't in the Biden administration. He wasn't in the Biden cabinet.
Speaker 1: Pete Boodagi can't make this complaint because Pete was Secretary
Speaker 1: of Transportation. Presumably he was supposed to have met with
Speaker 1: Biden at least occasionally. Pete doesn't have this, you know,
Speaker 1: standing to do this, but Josh Shapiro does. Shapiro turns
Speaker 1: to Kamala Harris and he says, hey, Kamala, you were
Speaker 1: the vice president of the United States. Everyone now knows
Speaker 1: that Biden was senile, and we now have very serious
Speaker 1: reason to suspect he had cancer. Did you know, If
Speaker 1: you know, why didn't you say anything? If you knew,
Speaker 1: why didn't you initiate the twenty fifth Amendment proceedings? So
Speaker 1: the twenty fifth Amendment, the vice president can uniquely herself
Speaker 1: initiate twenty fifth Amendment proceedings by convening the rest of
Speaker 1: the cabinet and to have the cabinet vote that the
Speaker 1: president is not qualified to do his job. Harris never
Speaker 1: did that. She never did that, even after Biden dropped out.
Speaker 1: She I mean, Biden dropped out of the presidential contest
Speaker 1: purportedly on the grounds that he wasn't quite I mean,
Speaker 1: the understood reason was that he wasn't sharp enough to
Speaker 1: still run for president. But for some reason, he was
Speaker 1: still sharp enough to be president. And so now Harris
Speaker 1: has to ask answer these questions, how can you with
Speaker 1: a straight face tell us that you were the vice
Speaker 1: president and you didn't know because I mean, the cat's
Speaker 1: out of the bag now and it's now a pretty
Speaker 1: much bipartisan position. No one needs to defend Biden anymore.
Speaker 1: That's why these books are coming out now, because Biden
Speaker 1: is not politically important anymore. Biden is a politically expendable person.
Speaker 1: At this point, Jake Tapper can all of a sudden
Speaker 1: develop the courage to talk about how what a horrible
Speaker 1: person Hunter Biden is and what a you know, how
Speaker 1: irresponsible Joe Biden was, and oh, now we've discovered how
Speaker 1: they knew. They knew all along that he was senile.
Speaker 1: Anyone with eyes to see k who he was senile.
Speaker 1: They just refused to investigate it because they didn't want
Speaker 1: to know. But Josh Shapiro doesn't. He has no that
Speaker 1: he is in no way harmed by just totally trashing
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. And importantly, Harris is gonna be like, it's
Speaker 1: probably I guess her and Buddha jij are gonna be
Speaker 1: like the two people still up there who have to
Speaker 1: in some way defend Biden still, because if Harris is
Speaker 1: up there and says, yep, Biden was totally senile and
Speaker 1: that's why I lost, and he hid it from me. Well,
Speaker 1: she's still gonna look like a n income poop. You
Speaker 1: were the vice president of the United States. You didn't
Speaker 1: know that the president was senile? How often were you
Speaker 1: meeting with him? We all saw it just seeing him
Speaker 1: on TV? Did you not see it? You must have
Speaker 1: seen it. You had way more in person meetings with
Speaker 1: him than we did. You saw it. Why didn't you
Speaker 1: do anything? I don't know how Harris is gonna answer
Speaker 1: those questions on an actual, competitive, hostile debate stage, because
Speaker 1: remember she just got anointed at the Democratic Convention last year.
Speaker 1: She was anointed, she didn't have to actually debate anybody.
Speaker 1: They didn't have an open convention process where other people
Speaker 1: could have realistically thrown their hat, and she managed to
Speaker 1: just suck up all the delegates in advance until there
Speaker 1: was no point. But that's not going to be the
Speaker 1: case in you know, in December twenty twenty seven, when
Speaker 1: she's standing on that debate stage and she's going to
Speaker 1: be looking around, and Josh Shapiro's going to be right there, going, hey,
Speaker 1: why didn't you say anything? Why didn't you do anything?
Speaker 1: Are you going to sit here and tell us that
Speaker 1: you really thought in your meetings with him in private
Speaker 1: that we didn't see. You thought he was really sharp,
Speaker 1: and that's why you didn't initiate those proceedings. And even
Speaker 1: after the debate, when he dropped out and let you
Speaker 1: run for president, you still didn't think he was too
Speaker 1: old for his job, and you'd refuse to do any
Speaker 1: You refuse to initiate the twenty fifth Amendment then, because
Speaker 1: nobody's gonna again by the time we get to twenty
Speaker 1: twenty seven. If you've got someone who wasn't in the
Speaker 1: Biden administration running like Josh Shapiro, he's not gonna He'll
Speaker 1: have no reason to hold back. What does he care
Speaker 1: if he offends Joe Biden. Joe Biden's out of power.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's probably gonna be dead by twenty I don't know.
Speaker 1: Probably there's a good chance Biden's gonna be dead by
Speaker 1: twenty twenty seven. So Josh Shapiro is gonna rip her
Speaker 1: or whoever else, I mean, pick your other person. It
Speaker 1: could be Gretchen Whitmer, it could be anyone else who
Speaker 1: wasn't in the Biden administration could make this line of
Speaker 1: attack on Kamala Harris, and I don't know how she's
Speaker 1: gonna answer it. You know, Harris had plenty of time
Speaker 1: to prepare for other kinds of similar difficult questions during
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty eight during the twenty twenty four campaign,
Speaker 1: and was not prepared. That seems to be a recurring
Speaker 1: problem with her in twenty twenty four. You know, they
Speaker 1: asked her so on on a friendly I think it
Speaker 1: was on the View. They asked, so, what would you
Speaker 1: have done differently from Biden over the last four years?
Speaker 1: And it's that nothing comes to mind. Nothing comes to mind,
Speaker 1: that's your answer. So then the the Republicans were like, well, fantastic,
Speaker 1: we were beating Biden back when the main issues were
Speaker 1: you know, inflation and all that. And she just said,
Speaker 1: she just said on the View she wouldn't have done
Speaker 1: anything differently. They cleaned her clock. So I don't know
Speaker 1: how on a hostile Democrat debate stage she can answer
Speaker 1: those questions well. And then the focus will turn to
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom, both of our California The greatest flowers growing,
Speaker 1: the two greatest blossoms growing on the Willie Brown Tree
Speaker 1: of political influence, Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom, Gavin, if
Speaker 1: he has the temerity to speak up about anything, well,
Speaker 1: then have everyone turned to him? Maybe even Kamala will
Speaker 1: turn to him viciously and say, ooh, who the heck
Speaker 1: are you to criticize anyone for anything? Every problem that
Speaker 1: California had when you entered as governor, And we're not
Speaker 1: talking about like partisan liberal conservative things. We're talking like
Speaker 1: objective problems. The high speed rail train isn't built, Homelessness
Speaker 1: is in a bad way. We keep having these terrible wildfires.
Speaker 1: We aren't building enough housing, cost of living is too high,
Speaker 1: energy prices are too high, Gas prices are too high.
Speaker 1: All of those things that were problems in twenty eighteen
Speaker 1: when you ran for governor are still crippling problems for
Speaker 1: California in twenty twenty seven. On top when this hypothetical
Speaker 1: debate takes place, on top of all of that, the
Speaker 1: state's finances are actually worse than what you inherited, Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom from Jerry Brown, Now, we're running these structural ten
Speaker 1: to twelve billion dollar deficits every single year. So why
Speaker 1: exactly do you think you should run for president? Other
Speaker 1: than your tall and you have good hair and nice Veneers.
Speaker 1: What are you doing? You have accomplished, you have been
Speaker 1: by any objective measurement, and I am trying to be objected.
Speaker 1: Even your signature achievement of expanding health insurance for everyone
Speaker 1: in California, you had to roll it back in embarrassingly
Speaker 1: disastrous fashion in twenty twenty five because it coused way
Speaker 1: unsustainably more than you anticipated it would. You've had to
Speaker 1: roll back your signature program of expanding medical coverage to
Speaker 1: all Californians. You did that, you improvidently expanded it, and
Speaker 1: you had to shamefacedly roll it back. So who are
Speaker 1: you to criticize anybody for anything? Who are you to
Speaker 1: promote yourself to be got? How dare you even try
Speaker 1: to run for president? Gavin Newsom and then everyone's going
Speaker 1: to make fun of him for the podcast? Oh why
Speaker 1: don't you get another Republican white guy on your podcast
Speaker 1: to discuss it? Gavin Gavin? Oh gosh, the Democrats are
Speaker 1: just gonna rip him a new one. And that's what
Speaker 1: I I really anticipate. I don't know that Gavin Newsom
Speaker 1: or Kamala Harris are going to be the nominee for
Speaker 1: president in twenty twenty eight even if Harris decides to
Speaker 1: run in twenty and by the way, all of this scenario,
Speaker 1: this might be why Harris ultimately decides to run for
Speaker 1: governor in twenty twenty six, because she's not gonna face
Speaker 1: that if she runs for governor. No one's gonna challenge
Speaker 1: her like that if she runs for governor. She runs
Speaker 1: for governor, she's gonna have such a name recognition advantage
Speaker 1: she can just ignore that kind of stuff. She's not
Speaker 1: gonna if she doesn't want a debate, she won't even
Speaker 1: have to debate. She'll just crush whoever's in her path.
Speaker 1: And those are the kinds of elections Harris likes. She
Speaker 1: likes just being the anointed savior who doesn't actually face
Speaker 1: a very particularly challenging election. Those are the only kinds
Speaker 1: of elections she's ever won. Frankly, when we return, is
Speaker 1: James Comy funny or relevant the curious decisions of late
Speaker 1: night comedian hosts? Next on The John Girardi Show. I
Speaker 1: don't know how many of you have followed the particularly
Speaker 1: stupid story about James Comy. James Comy, the former director
Speaker 1: of the FBI who deliberately tried to set up a
Speaker 1: situation to get President Trump impeached and removed on the
Speaker 1: specious grounds that he was somehow an agent of the
Speaker 1: Russians as soon as Trump took office, was trying to
Speaker 1: set up stuff in meetings to spy on him, to
Speaker 1: try to cook up a story to help him get impeached,
Speaker 1: and clearly was deceptive and has not really covered himself
Speaker 1: in glory in retrospect in any respect. So James Comey,
Speaker 1: the former director of the FBI, he's now taken to
Speaker 1: just sort of being a social media liberal hashtag resistance
Speaker 1: anti Trump gadfly, and he posted about a week or
Speaker 1: so ago, Oh my wife was walking down the beach
Speaker 1: and saw an interesting political message and it was the
Speaker 1: numbers eighty six forty seven now to eighty six something means.
Speaker 1: It's often used in restaurants to mean get rid of it,
Speaker 1: take it off the menu, stop serving it because we
Speaker 1: ran out of that food. Get rid of it. There's
Speaker 1: some thoughts that that could also mean, like assassinate or
Speaker 1: take out. And people are after he posted it, people
Speaker 1: were kind of like, what the heck is the former
Speaker 1: director of the FBI is the former director of the
Speaker 1: FBI like saying we should take out the forty seventh
Speaker 1: President of the United States, Donald Trump? Should we take
Speaker 1: him out? And you know Donald Trump, who has had
Speaker 1: two assassination attempts against him foil one wasn't really foiled.
Speaker 1: The guy got a shot off and shot his ear off.
Speaker 1: Why is the former is the former director of the
Speaker 1: FBI does not understand that that's how that could be imployed.
Speaker 1: And also it just seems like complete bologny that, oh,
Speaker 1: I just happened to see this. He had like also
Speaker 1: a year or two prior, had posted a picture again
Speaker 1: at the beach of someone with a seashell that said
Speaker 1: Kamala twenty twenty four. It's like, oh, how interesting that
Speaker 1: James Comy keeps finding out whatever beach he's at. I
Speaker 1: don't know where he is, Delaware, So it must be
Speaker 1: nice being a former FBI director. I guess you could
Speaker 1: a beach house that you see all these political messages
Speaker 1: embedded in the ocean. So all right. Stephen Colbert, the
Speaker 1: host of CBS's late night comedy show, brings on James
Speaker 1: Comy as a guest over this thing. And I guess
Speaker 1: I just got asked the question. I know Stephen Colbert
Speaker 1: is a big fat liberal. I know that he talks
Speaker 1: a lot about politics. What about James Comy makes you think, Aha,
Speaker 1: this guy's a barrel of laughs. The guy is like
Speaker 1: a he's a wooden board. He's a stiff. He's not
Speaker 1: particularly funny. And that's what I don't get about that
Speaker 1: this huge like political turn that like Colbert has taken,
Speaker 1: is that really funny? I mean, I guess it's got
Speaker 1: him good ratings against the other late night hosts, so
Speaker 1: I guess it works. But anyway, that'll do it. John
Speaker 1: Girardi Show, See you next time. I'm Power Talk