Speaker 1: Watching the Walls Harris debate confirmed some things I suspected
Speaker 1: having a bit of a connection to Minnesota and Minnesota
Speaker 1: politics via my in laws, and what I suspected was
Speaker 1: Tim Walls is not a man for the big stage.
Speaker 1: He's a man for the small stage. I remember this
Speaker 1: very clearly with Scott Walker, the former governor of Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: the Republican governor of Wisconsin, and there was this flurry
Speaker 1: of excitement on the right when Walker became the governor
Speaker 1: of Wisconsin, and a lot of libertarian leaning conservative money
Speaker 1: was so thrilled about Walker because he took a lot
Speaker 1: of steps after he came into office to break the
Speaker 1: power of a lot of different unions within Wisconsin, especially
Speaker 1: public sector unions. And that's the one, you know, the
Speaker 1: Koch brother money that's out there. I mean, the one
Speaker 1: thing that they're all very very much united on is
Speaker 1: that unions are bad. So they loved Scott Walker, and
Speaker 1: I'm a bit more ambivalent on that question. I certainly
Speaker 1: not crazy about public sector unions and teachers' unions. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: there was all of this excitement about Scott Walker, and
Speaker 1: you know, kind of twenty thirteen, twenty fourteen, latter half
Speaker 1: of the Obama years and everyone's like, this guy's running
Speaker 1: for president, this guy's running for president, this guy's running
Speaker 1: for president. And then twenty sixteen rolls around and what
Speaker 1: do we see? Eh, he was on the debate stage
Speaker 1: and completely dwarfed charisma wise by guess who, Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Some people are just not made for prime time. They're
Speaker 1: not made for a national political stage. They're not national
Speaker 1: political figures. They are appealing to a statewide audience. They
Speaker 1: can get support from statewide donors, they can get political
Speaker 1: and media coverage that's favorable, and you know, a breeze
Speaker 1: to their back from local media and local outlets. But
Speaker 1: they're not ready for prime time. And that's who Tim
Speaker 1: Walls is. Walls has been kind of bubble wrapped throughout
Speaker 1: this process and with Democrat and media narratives telling us
Speaker 1: how wonderful he is, but there's been no uncontrolled occasion
Speaker 1: for actually seeing him face to face. And once we did,
Speaker 1: what did we see? Well, he kind of looked dopey,
Speaker 1: look like I saw someone on Twitter make the joke
Speaker 1: that he looked like Don Rickles, Don Rickles wimpy Lutheran brother,
Speaker 1: which I thought was hilarious and dead on the other
Speaker 1: thing that I find hilarious is how, both for Walls
Speaker 1: and then lately, for some reason, Kamala Harris's husband, Scott Emhoff,
Speaker 1: there's this constant effort by people on the left to
Speaker 1: want to identify their favored politicians as like family members
Speaker 1: or like either either to grossly sexualize them like or
Speaker 1: to portray them as like their father or something. Oh,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's like our grandpa. Kamala Harris is Mamla. She's
Speaker 1: you know, just like your fun aunt, and or to
Speaker 1: the gross sort of there were different ways throughout the
Speaker 1: Obama years where people were sexualizing bro Oh, he's so hot,
Speaker 1: he's so confident, he's so cool. With both Walls and
Speaker 1: m Hoff, there was a recent story about Doug m
Speaker 1: Hoff saying that, oh, Doug m Hoff, he's he's reshaping
Speaker 1: our concept of masculinity. So it's basically and similar things
Speaker 1: have been said of Walls, which is so hilarious to me,
Speaker 1: Like a liberal man exists and liberals go, wow, this
Speaker 1: is reshaping our entire concept of masculinity. I don't think
Speaker 1: they're reshaping anyone's concepts of masculinity. They're guys. I mean whatever,
Speaker 1: Maybe they're a good guy, maybe they're a bad guy.
Speaker 1: I highly doubt that the vice presidential nominee or the
Speaker 1: current the husband of the current vice president, is really
Speaker 1: reshaping anyone's sense of masculinity. Although if we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about Doug m Hoff, I mean, I don't know
Speaker 1: that he's reshaping my concept of masculinity, given that his
Speaker 1: concept of masculinity is cheating on his wife with the
Speaker 1: nanny and then marrying some other galp you know, so,
Speaker 1: I don't know, doesn't strike me as a very appealing
Speaker 1: concept of masculinity. Now, it seems like the soft consensus
Speaker 1: is that Vance did better, and a lot of the
Speaker 1: messaging from the left after the fact has been well,
Speaker 1: the vice presidency isn't all that important. It's not like
Speaker 1: the vice presidency such policy, which is an awkward thing
Speaker 1: for liberals to argue right now, given who their nominee is.
Speaker 1: And it's almost this impossible tightrope that liberals have to
Speaker 1: walk with Kamala Harris. They have to portray her as
Speaker 1: smart and competent and part of the plan. They cannot
Speaker 1: I think they have to pick one or the other. Either.
Speaker 1: She was really heavily involved as a prominent key decision
Speaker 1: maker for Democrat policies for the last four years, in
Speaker 1: which case, unfortunately for her, she has to bear a
Speaker 1: lot of the blame for those policies. Or and frankly,
Speaker 1: I kind of think this is more likely. She was
Speaker 1: often left out in the cold, she was off And
Speaker 1: by the way, Biden is saying she was involved. She
Speaker 1: was involved with every just major decision I made. She
Speaker 1: was there making it with me. So Biden is clearly
Speaker 1: taking the posture I think I was a great president,
Speaker 1: I'm not. And so I can't say that, and Biden
Speaker 1: can't say, yeah, she wasn't really involved in anything. It
Speaker 1: was all me, because the only reason to do that
Speaker 1: would be to help Harris distance herself from Biden. He
Speaker 1: doesn't think he's he should be distanced from. He's very
Speaker 1: proud of his presidency. He thinks he's this great historic figure.
Speaker 1: In his head, he has constructed this image of himself,
Speaker 1: so he's like, oh, yeah, she's deeply involved in all
Speaker 1: my policy decisions. But I think and I think most
Speaker 1: of the reporting that was out there prior to the
Speaker 1: big switcheroo in July when Biden dropped out and Harris
Speaker 1: became the nominee all of a sudden. I think it's
Speaker 1: more likely true that Harris actually was sidelined most of
Speaker 1: the time within the Biden administration. I think she was
Speaker 1: a relative unimportant figure within the Biden administration. I think
Speaker 1: lots of cabinet officials had more, say, more influence. Biden
Speaker 1: trusted them more, relied on them more than he did
Speaker 1: on Harris. And I think a lot of the reporting
Speaker 1: that was coming out was indicating things like Biden can't
Speaker 1: stand Harris, Biden can't stand how she won't take anything
Speaker 1: off his plate. Coming from the Harris camp was you
Speaker 1: were hearing rumblings of frustration that Biden wouldn't give her anything,
Speaker 1: that the stuff he did give her seemed like he
Speaker 1: was setting her up to fail. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know that she's ever going to recover from the border
Speaker 1: Zar thing, because like the the assignment Biden gave her,
Speaker 1: he basically just did did not at all empower her
Speaker 1: to actually fix anything that was wrong with the border.
Speaker 1: So here she is. He's making this big enough. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm putting you're in charge of migration issues, root causes
Speaker 1: of migration and problems of the southern border. This thing
Speaker 1: where it's like, oh, she's in charge of this problem.
Speaker 1: She will never resolve that. There's no humanly possible way
Speaker 1: she will resolve it. Now, do I think Harris still
Speaker 1: deserves some blame for Biden's policies? Well, yeah, she signed
Speaker 1: up for it. She signed up to be as vice president.
Speaker 1: She publicly supported everything he did. She's part of that administration.
Speaker 1: She's the incumbent. She has to take that blame. But
Speaker 1: I could understand and if she wants to come out
Speaker 1: tomorrow and say, listen, the reason why this country's not
Speaker 1: doing well is because Joe Biden shunted me to the side.
Speaker 1: Here's all the things I do differently from him. She
Speaker 1: can come out tomorrow and do that. But she's not
Speaker 1: going to do that. She knows she can't or she
Speaker 1: feels she can't. So this is the tricky thing is
Speaker 1: if you're gonna say, well, the vice presidential debate is
Speaker 1: sort of meaningless, I mean, how important is the vice president? Really?
Speaker 1: I mean, well, then now important is Kamala Harris? Really?
Speaker 1: What are we talking about? Then you can't out of
Speaker 1: one side of your mouth because Wall's got you know,
Speaker 1: the brakes beaten off of them. You can't say, oh,
Speaker 1: the vice presidential debate is meaningless because the vice president doesn't,
Speaker 1: you know, actually set polishy or anything. Well, yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean the vice president is there supporting the president with
Speaker 1: the president's policies. You can't pretend like it's not important
Speaker 1: when your nominee is the vice president. And again, this
Speaker 1: is the problem. You have to either say she was
Speaker 1: intimately involved in everything, in which case she has to
Speaker 1: take the blame for everything that went wrong the last
Speaker 1: four years, or you have to say, oh, she didn't
Speaker 1: have anything to do with all those things. And Democrats
Speaker 1: are finding it's it's really hard to have it both ways.
Speaker 1: And I think that might have been just, you know,
Speaker 1: to get back to the actual analysis of the debate.
Speaker 1: I think that might have been the strongest points that
Speaker 1: Vance was making, which was bringing it back to Harris
Speaker 1: all the time that she's the incumbent, that she's the
Speaker 1: one who's done all these things, that she has to
Speaker 1: bear the responsibility for all of these problems that we're
Speaker 1: talking about that exist in the country, that her day
Speaker 1: one was. I think he had one line during the
Speaker 1: debate that you know, she keeps on day one, I'm
Speaker 1: going to fix X y and z no no, no, no.
Speaker 1: Your day one was fourteen hundred days ago. I mean
Speaker 1: she's been vice president now for about fourteen hundred days since,
Speaker 1: you know, January twentieth of twenty twenty one. So I
Speaker 1: thought that was really strong from Vance. And again it
Speaker 1: sort of showed, you know, maybe there's no strong rebuttal
Speaker 1: that Walls can provide. But I just don't feel like
Speaker 1: Walls was set for that stage being And you see
Speaker 1: this kind of sometimes with other especially with Democrat governors.
Speaker 1: I think in blue, deep blue states, you get elected
Speaker 1: as you win your primary for governor in a deep
Speaker 1: blue state, and your life is pretty smooth sailing after that.
Speaker 1: There's no real threat or challenge to your seat. The
Speaker 1: media will always back you. It will always be the
Speaker 1: wind beneath your wings. You're not ever really fighting for
Speaker 1: your political life. You're sort of just the guy in
Speaker 1: charge and everyone's backing you. And I don't know that
Speaker 1: Walls is prepared for like this kind of a combative
Speaker 1: environment where you know it's him trying to duke it
Speaker 1: out with someone who has a real realistic chance of
Speaker 1: beating him. He's not made for the big canvas and
Speaker 1: and he's he's getting in trouble also because of his
Speaker 1: sort of serial stretching of the truth. He had a
Speaker 1: he didn't really have a good answer for his frequent
Speaker 1: claims that he was in Hong Kong during the Tianas
Speaker 1: or Hong Kong or Taiwan. I can't remember. He kept
Speaker 1: making this claim that when Tianaman Square happened, that he
Speaker 1: was either in Hong Kong or in Taiwan. And all
Speaker 1: they records seem to indicate that people dug into this
Speaker 1: and and there's seems to be a decent amount of
Speaker 1: evidence reporting on it that actually he was in Nebraska,
Speaker 1: and he's oh, I was being dopey, I misremembered, misspoke.
Speaker 1: He's got that he's got his kind of weird stolen
Speaker 1: valor things where he's you know, claiming at one point
Speaker 1: he is using weapons of war and that you know,
Speaker 1: sort of embellishing his military service, which is a big
Speaker 1: time no. No, he's you know, he And the thing
Speaker 1: is little crap like that you can get away with
Speaker 1: when you're the governor of deep blue Minnesota, when you
Speaker 1: know you've got you know, this ten point electoral cushion
Speaker 1: all the time, and that local media is really not
Speaker 1: going to challenge you about it, not that hard, but
Speaker 1: on the big stage, he can't avoid that stuff, and
Speaker 1: I think he looked pretty weak. The only things I
Speaker 1: think he did let me close with this, the only
Speaker 1: points where I think it seemed as though he was
Speaker 1: doing better than Vance, because I don't think Vance had
Speaker 1: a great answer for it, was the January sixth stuff
Speaker 1: and democracy, which first, that stuff happened at least, gosh,
Speaker 1: what time was that happening. Seemed like that was like
Speaker 1: about forty or fifty minutes into the debate, which I
Speaker 1: feel like probably half the audience had turned off the
Speaker 1: debate by that point. But it's also this, I don't
Speaker 1: get the sense that Americans really give a crap about
Speaker 1: January sixth anymore. For the most part, I just don't
Speaker 1: think they do. And the Democrats had really put a
Speaker 1: lot of eggs into the basket of thro We got
Speaker 1: to protect democracy, we need to be protecting democracies about democracy,
Speaker 1: and I always thought that that messaging it just seems
Speaker 1: so vague that I just don't think it's going to work,
Speaker 1: And most of the polling indicates it hasn't worked. When
Speaker 1: you ask voters about who's the best for protecting democracy.
Speaker 1: It's about a fifty to fifty split, just like the
Speaker 1: election overall. So I just don't think it is really working.
Speaker 1: The one thing where I think Walls probably did a
Speaker 1: little bit better than vance don't think it was working.
Speaker 1: When we return a little bit about tribalism, loving your
Speaker 1: own tribe and Tim Walls's visit to the University of
Speaker 1: Michigan and the Big House for the Minnesota Michigan football
Speaker 1: game next on The John Girardi Show, The big Tim
Speaker 1: Walls story was not the debate last night. The bigger
Speaker 1: Tim Walls story was the football game on Saturday. Tim
Speaker 1: Walls went to Michigan. It's obviously spending a lot of
Speaker 1: time in Michigan. All the presidential vice presidential candidates, they're
Speaker 1: all spending a lot of time in Michigan. He goes
Speaker 1: to Ann Arbor, home of the stud of Michigan. He
Speaker 1: goes to the Michigan versus Minnesota football game the University
Speaker 1: of Minnesota. The Gophers are playing the University of Michigan
Speaker 1: in the Big House, playing the Wolverines. Now, before I
Speaker 1: discuss this, I have to preface this with my own
Speaker 1: history with Michigan. I despise Michigan. I despise the University
Speaker 1: of Michigan football team. I hate it with the fury
Speaker 1: of a thousand suns. I despise them and all their works,
Speaker 1: and all their pomps, and all their empty promises. This
Speaker 1: is due to some PTSD from a couple of Michigan
Speaker 1: Notre Dame game, Michigan's kind of a long time on
Speaker 1: again off again rival of Notre Dame. I had two games,
Speaker 1: in particular, the twenty ten and twenty eleven Michigan Notre
Speaker 1: Dame games, in which Michigan's quarterback must have thrown for
Speaker 1: three hundred yards and ran for two hundred year, must
Speaker 1: have thrown for basically half of a mile and ran
Speaker 1: for another half of a mile against Notre Dame. Denard Robinson,
Speaker 1: that was his name, Denard Robinson, who was Michigan's quarterback
Speaker 1: during that time, And looks like they would always play
Speaker 1: Notre Dame early in the season, like maybe the second
Speaker 1: or third game of the season, and he would play
Speaker 1: Notre Dame and it's like he took football pills. He
Speaker 1: would look like the greatest college football player in the country.
Speaker 1: He'd shoot up to the top of the Heisman watch
Speaker 1: list and then proceed to play incredibly mediocre football the
Speaker 1: entire rest of the year. So it was like, only
Speaker 1: against Notre Dame he looked like an absolute world beater.
Speaker 1: So I and he won two extremely close games against
Speaker 1: Notre Dame, where again he gained about one mile worth
Speaker 1: of yardage single handedly. So I despise Michigan. So many
Speaker 1: games we played against Michigan, so much heartbreak, anger, resentment, sadness, whatever.
Speaker 1: So I despised Michigan. And I'd like to believe if
Speaker 1: I were running for president and I needed to campaign
Speaker 1: in Michigan, that I, as a Notre Dame graduate, if
Speaker 1: Notre Dame went to Michigan for a football game and
Speaker 1: I was campaigning, there is not a snowballs chance in
Speaker 1: hell that I would wear a Michigan jersey. I would
Speaker 1: sooner die than wear a Michigan jersey. Never. I don't care.
Speaker 1: If I'm campaigning to be the mayor of ann Arbor,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to root for Michigan. I hate Michigan.
Speaker 1: I despise a Michigan so much. And this, this guy,
Speaker 1: Tim Walls, the governor of Minnesota, goes to Michigan for
Speaker 1: a football game, and whose jersey does he put on?
Speaker 1: A Michigan jersey? Disgusting, despicable, outrageous. In the words of
Speaker 1: Jackie Childs, the Johnny Cochrane imitation attorney from Seinfeld, I
Speaker 1: cannot express how this, how much this revolts me, and
Speaker 1: I feel like it's a move that's gonna backfire on
Speaker 1: Walls because I don't think any self respecting Michigan fan
Speaker 1: would want a Minnesota fan to wear a Michigan jersey
Speaker 1: when they go to Michigan. Like, how does any Michigan
Speaker 1: voter respect that? Like, wouldn't you respect it more if
Speaker 1: the guy was saying, Hey, I want your vote, but
Speaker 1: I got a room for my Gophers today. Sorry, Like
Speaker 1: wouldn't wouldn't that be your preference as a Michigan voter, Like, Okay,
Speaker 1: at least this this man is being authentic, Like I
Speaker 1: understand he's not from Michigan. He's got to support his
Speaker 1: guys when he comes to the big house. Okay, that's
Speaker 1: like a real guy. No, Walls is such a panderer
Speaker 1: that he would put on that jersey, that jersey of
Speaker 1: all jerseys. Oh my god, just ah, that tells you
Speaker 1: all you need to know about Tim Wolson. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure what it tells you, but it tells you something
Speaker 1: about inauthenticity, possibly not really understanding football at all, which
Speaker 1: you know, old Tim Wallas is redefining what it means
Speaker 1: to be masculine. I'm not sure that that's true anyway.
Speaker 1: I'm Holly and I were so disgusted by that, Like
Speaker 1: what a revolting thing to do. Like, I don't care
Speaker 1: if I'm running for mayor of Los Angeles or you know,
Speaker 1: if I'm running for governor of cal I'm never gonna
Speaker 1: run for governor of California. It don't be ridiculous. But
Speaker 1: if I'm running for governor of California, let me guarantee
Speaker 1: you one thing you will catch me. I would sooner
Speaker 1: die than wear a USC jersey. Never, never, in a
Speaker 1: million billion years would I wear a USC jersey. Like
Speaker 1: that's like what I might wear a presdent statee jersey,
Speaker 1: given that President State has never played Notre Dame. Ever,
Speaker 1: they're not really rivals in any way. But Minnesota plays
Speaker 1: Michigan every single year. How they hate Michigan. How I
Speaker 1: cannot fathom the brain of someone who does that. So
Speaker 1: that is the most significant Tim Wall's story of the
Speaker 1: weekend was not his debate performance the fact that he
Speaker 1: stooped so low as to wear a Michigan jersey. The
Speaker 1: kinds of oh gosh, the kinds of moral compromises politics
Speaker 1: forces on you is disgusting. When we return, Should the
Speaker 1: City of Clovis move to district based voting for its
Speaker 1: city council members? Next on the John Girardi Show. One
Speaker 1: thing some of you may notice is happening with different
Speaker 1: local election bodies differ different local government bodies, and you
Speaker 1: probably haven't noticed it unless you're a real local political
Speaker 1: junkie kind of the way I am, so I am
Speaker 1: here to explain it to you. There's a huge push
Speaker 1: all up and down the state to try to change
Speaker 1: the groundwork for local elections and voting in local elections
Speaker 1: in order to advantage liberals, and the way that they
Speaker 1: are trying to do so is by using the California
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act and the Federal Voting Rights Act to
Speaker 1: manipulate things. Basically, to try to argue that the current
Speaker 1: setup of a given political entities, districts, given political entities boundaries,
Speaker 1: that they are set up in a way that violates
Speaker 1: the civil rights of minority voters. I am interested in
Speaker 1: this as a Clovis resident due to a letter sort
Speaker 1: of threatening this could turn into a lawsuit. Letter that
Speaker 1: was sent to the City of Clovis by a voting
Speaker 1: rights attorney from Malibu named Kevin Schenkman. So on August
Speaker 1: twenty third, this guy, Kevin Shankman, sent a letter to
Speaker 1: the Clovis City Council arguing that its method of electing
Speaker 1: city council members is illegal. He asks for an October
Speaker 1: fourteenth date for a response. Now, how is it illegal?
Speaker 1: Let's see, the city of Clovis has five city council members.
Speaker 1: Unlike Fresno, which has city council members plus a mayor. Clovis,
Speaker 1: like a lot of small town governments in the San
Speaker 1: Jauquin Valley, Clovis doesn't have a strong mayor who kind
Speaker 1: of functions almost like a president. So the way the
Speaker 1: president of city council works, it's almost like there's a
Speaker 1: city council that functions kind of like Congress, and the
Speaker 1: mayor kind of functions like the president. The president can
Speaker 1: veto certain decisions by the city council. He's sort of
Speaker 1: the executive anyway, Clovis is not set up that way.
Speaker 1: Clovis basically just has city council. City council votes for
Speaker 1: proposed measures they oversee different they oversee as a council,
Speaker 1: various different city services. The city manager, et cetera, and
Speaker 1: city council members in Clovis are voted for in an
Speaker 1: at large process. That means Clovis is not divided up
Speaker 1: into city council regions the way Fresno is. So. In Fresno,
Speaker 1: Gary Brettefeld, for example, is a city council member, and
Speaker 1: he's representing presidents who live in his district. I believe
Speaker 1: it's District six, which is most of North Fresno. On
Speaker 1: Lisa Perea, she's representing people who live more in the
Speaker 1: Tower district. Miguel Arius is representing more people. I forget
Speaker 1: exactly where his district is. I think he's kind of
Speaker 1: more downtowny different. So different city council members represent different
Speaker 1: parts of the city, and the city is broken up
Speaker 1: into regions. So Gary Brettefeld is not. Nobody who lives
Speaker 1: in the Tower District is voting for or against Gary Brettefeld.
Speaker 1: Nobody who lives in Woodward Park is voting for or
Speaker 1: against Analisa Prea. They have their one city council member.
Speaker 1: Clovis is not that way. Clovi City Council members are
Speaker 1: elected at large. All five of the city council members
Speaker 1: are subject to a vote by all of the voting
Speaker 1: citizens of the entire city of Clovis. So it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter where they live, where the individual city council members live.
Speaker 1: Everyone in Fresno, excuse me, everyone in Clovis gets to
Speaker 1: vote for all five of the Clovis City Council members.
Speaker 1: And they sort of stagger their terms of office, so
Speaker 1: I think every two years you're voting for either two
Speaker 1: or three spots, so they're five spots total. Now, the
Speaker 1: argument that's being made by this attorney is that at
Speaker 1: large elections disadvantage minority voters in Clovis. At large elections
Speaker 1: disenfranchised minority voters in Clovis. And here's the basic argument.
Speaker 1: Most members of the Clovis City Council live east of
Speaker 1: Clovis Avenue. Most of the poor and minority residents of
Speaker 1: Clovis live west of Clovis Avenue. They're about thirty percent
Speaker 1: of voters in Clovis are Latinos. Therefore, Latinos by having
Speaker 1: at large voting are structurally kept out of power and influence.
Speaker 1: If Clovis were to adopt a regionally based city council
Speaker 1: where you had different city council districts and people running
Speaker 1: within those different districts, then you would have more equitable
Speaker 1: racial representation, all right. That's the argument, And the argument
Speaker 1: is that the California Voting Rights Act mandates basically it
Speaker 1: tries to mandate against historic racist practices that happened in
Speaker 1: a lot of communities in the South. So in the South,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of different practices that were undertaken
Speaker 1: to lessen eliminate the political influence of African Americans, whether
Speaker 1: it was you know, taking you know, putting all the
Speaker 1: African American vote into one district so that none of
Speaker 1: the other districts would have any African American representation, or
Speaker 1: like almost dividing up the African American neighborhood like almost
Speaker 1: like twenty different pizza slices, so that all of these
Speaker 1: different districts would have a very small number of African
Speaker 1: American voters and there would be no one district where
Speaker 1: African American voters had any influence whatsoever. Or basically African
Speaker 1: Americans would have very little influence in a lot of
Speaker 1: different districts. So there were a lot of ways in
Speaker 1: the South, in ways that were probably motivated by race,
Speaker 1: where African American voters were in various ways disenfranchised. Now
Speaker 1: the problem is, though, when politics and the political art
Speaker 1: of redistricting, which has always been something that's reserved for
Speaker 1: the political process, where people do redistricting very consciously thinking
Speaker 1: about elections, and the party in power who's in charge
Speaker 1: of the redistricting thinks about politics and they think about, well, well,
Speaker 1: I want to create a safe Republican district here. That's
Speaker 1: the advantage of winning, you know. And we're looking at
Speaker 1: voting trends. This neighborhood tends to vote Democrat, this neighborhood
Speaker 1: tends to vote Republican. And the problem seems to be
Speaker 1: when that overlay of which neighborhoods vote Democrat, which neighborhoods
Speaker 1: vote Republican, if that overlay is really consistent with racial demographics.
Speaker 1: And I think what Democrats have done is throughout California
Speaker 1: they are pushing for reforms on the premise that over here,
Speaker 1: just we can't disenfranchise Latino voters. We can't disenfranchise the
Speaker 1: Latino community in this place this place. What they actually
Speaker 1: care about is they want more Democrats to win. Even
Speaker 1: if people are drawing these maps with no racial animus,
Speaker 1: they're drawing these maps based on political desires. Nonetheless, Democrats
Speaker 1: are trying to use these mechanisms to ensure that they
Speaker 1: get Democrat outcomes. So what they want, what this guy
Speaker 1: is thinking is that Clovis could get a couple of
Speaker 1: Democrats on the Clovis City Council if they just split
Speaker 1: up the way they did the vote differently. Now, one
Speaker 1: of the things that hasn't been accounted for is that
Speaker 1: we've had Latino representation on the Clos City Council for
Speaker 1: a long time. The arguments made, well, there isn't a
Speaker 1: single Latino on the Clos City Council right now. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Jose Flores was on the Clovis City Council for like
Speaker 1: over twenty years. And by the way, Jose had a
Speaker 1: statement in respond to GV wire at a piece on it.
Speaker 1: They interviewed Flores about it, who said, basically, he does
Speaker 1: not support breaking Clovis up into separate districts for city
Speaker 1: council members. He says it's not a formula for fairness.
Speaker 1: It's not a formula for equality, and it's not a
Speaker 1: formula for democracy. Flores now serves as the police chief
Speaker 1: of the State Center Community College District. He basically is like, yeah,
Speaker 1: this wouldn't help and because a couple of things that
Speaker 1: will happen if this is adopted. One territorialism. Gary Bradefeld
Speaker 1: always gets hit with charges, well, you don't care about
Speaker 1: people in South Fresno. You don't because you're just caring
Speaker 1: about you're a lily white North Fresno Woodward Park constituents,
Speaker 1: which I think has always been an unfair thing for Gary,
Speaker 1: and I think his record is indicated he wants to
Speaker 1: do things to help South presdo But that is, ah,
Speaker 1: that is the kind of thing that will naturally happen
Speaker 1: when you have individual regional district voting. Also, it's sort
Speaker 1: of a thing of you know, Clovis is not that
Speaker 1: large of a city yet, I mean he's got one
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty thousand people, so it is it's gotten
Speaker 1: a lot bigger in the last twenty years. Maybe you
Speaker 1: can make the argument that at large voting made more
Speaker 1: sense when Clovis was the city of sixty thousand people
Speaker 1: rather than one hundred and twenty thousand people like it
Speaker 1: is now. I don't know. I think the system makes
Speaker 1: sense now, and I think the only reason this challenge
Speaker 1: is being brought forward is because the closed City Council
Speaker 1: is pretty conservative, although I'd say it's not nearly as
Speaker 1: conservative as people think. I think Diane Pierce is a
Speaker 1: real conservative. I think Vung one to two is pretty conservative.
Speaker 1: Not as sure about the other folks. So anyway, in short,
Speaker 1: I hate all of these initiatives by liberal some left
Speaker 1: wing attorney from Beverly Hills swooping in and he's making
Speaker 1: it well that he's got a couple of constituents who
Speaker 1: live in clothes. I won't reveal them names for fear
Speaker 1: of retaliation. Retaliation. Please, come on, you're filing a lawsuit
Speaker 1: about at large voting. This is not an issue that's
Speaker 1: going to inspire people to have pitchforks and torches outside
Speaker 1: your client, your alleged client's house. Which basically what this
Speaker 1: guy is doing is he's trolling different cities all up
Speaker 1: and down the state of California, sending threatening demand letters
Speaker 1: on behalf of clients. So he'll find two or three
Speaker 1: people from some Democrat operative. Probably we're like, oh, will
Speaker 1: you be my client to represent me for trying to
Speaker 1: get the Clover City Council to change its representation? Uh? Sure,
Speaker 1: Do I have to do anything? No? To sign this paper?
Speaker 1: Oh okay, and then he can collect attorney's fees from
Speaker 1: the lawsuit that likely follows. So I find the whole
Speaker 1: thing sleazy. This is purely a Democrat attempt to get
Speaker 1: more seats on the Clovis City Council. And I think
Speaker 1: a lot of the Clovis City Council members think we're
Speaker 1: doing a pretty good job with that. He serves as
Speaker 1: we're doing this pretty well run city as it is.
Speaker 1: It's good that all the city council members care about
Speaker 1: all of Clovis. They have to care about all of
Speaker 1: Clovis because they're at large. They're all accountable to all
Speaker 1: the voters of Clovis. Speaking of redefining masculinity, which is
Speaker 1: what the left keeps saying about Kamala Harris's husband, some
Speaker 1: more shady stories about maybe Doug m Hoff forcefully slapping
Speaker 1: his ex girlfriend. Next on the John Girardi Show, so
Speaker 1: there was this barf worthy interview between Jen Saki, the
Speaker 1: former press secretary for President Biden, who immediately parlayed her
Speaker 1: quick stint as press secretary into an MSNBC show. This
Speaker 1: bar for the interview between her and Doug m Hoff,
Speaker 1: where she said, Oh, you're like redefining our concept of
Speaker 1: what it means to be masculine by being a supportive
Speaker 1: husband to your wife. Kamala Harrinth and I've been laughing
Speaker 1: at this idea that like a liberal man exists and
Speaker 1: immediately liberals are like, oh, he's redefall I'm a fauci sexual.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, she's redefining the whole concept of what
Speaker 1: it means to be masculine. So here's some of the
Speaker 1: ways in which Doug Hemoff has redefined what it means
Speaker 1: to be masculine. First, let's not forget he got divorced
Speaker 1: from his first marriage because he cheated on his wife
Speaker 1: with his daughter's nanny, got her pregnant, and it appears
Speaker 1: she had an abortion. I don't know the full details
Speaker 1: of all involved he was. Anyway, there's now this story
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris's husband Doug m Hoff. According to dailymail dot
Speaker 1: Com the UK Daily Mail, Kamala Harris's husband Doug m
Speaker 1: Hoff forcefully slapped his ex girlfriend for flirting with another
Speaker 1: man in a booze fueled assault after a date to
Speaker 1: a star studded gallop. This was back in twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: before he was with Harris. Now this is kind of
Speaker 1: seems a little tabloidy, but they've got apparently three sources
Speaker 1: who asserted this not redefining my concept of masculinity. That'll
Speaker 1: do it. John Gierlady shows you next time on Power Talk.