Speaker 1: Javier Besarah has announced that he is running for governor
Speaker 1: of California, and this show is going to talk about
Speaker 1: it all right. I want to in detail talk about
Speaker 1: it because I think it means a lot of things
Speaker 1: from a lot of different angles. And in announcing that
Speaker 1: he was running for governor, but Sarah gave maybe one
Speaker 1: of the more remarkable interview answers I've ever heard a
Speaker 1: politician give, just an absolute master class in bsing. So
Speaker 1: we're going to get to all of it. So let's
Speaker 1: start with this hobby. Aerbasara is running for governor. I
Speaker 1: have been joking with friends for the last month about
Speaker 1: the possibility of Kamala Harris running for governor, and you know,
Speaker 1: obviously not a fan, I've talked at length about how
Speaker 1: I think she's the worst. She's terrible. She would probably
Speaker 1: just completely dominate if she decided to run for governor
Speaker 1: of California, because just on name recognition alone, I think
Speaker 1: she would easily win. And I had to take all
Speaker 1: of it back about her being the worst when Bessarah
Speaker 1: jumped in, because Bessarah might have been my least favorite
Speaker 1: person in the entire Biden administration, including Harris. Javier Bessara
Speaker 1: is the worst. He is an aggressively pro abortion partisan hack.
Speaker 1: He let's remember his what legacy does Besara have? So okay,
Speaker 1: Besarah was a member of the House. He then becomes
Speaker 1: the Attorney General of California, and as Attorney General of California,
Speaker 1: he was basically the chief litigator against Donald Trump in
Speaker 1: the first Trump administration. He filed lawsuit after lossit after
Speaker 1: lawsuit in his role as Attorney General of California, lassit
Speaker 1: after lawson after lawsuit against President Trump. He was like
Speaker 1: one of the leading lights of the hashtag resistance, the
Speaker 1: legal resistance against President Trump. And he was richly rewarded
Speaker 1: for his efforts by being nominated in twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: to serve as the Secretary for the Department of Health
Speaker 1: and Human Services. And by the way, let's recall what
Speaker 1: a crown jewel being the HHS secretary is. Just as
Speaker 1: far as dollars managed. The Secretary of HHS is managing
Speaker 1: a budget that's bigger than pretty much any other cabinet secretary.
Speaker 1: Like it's over a trillion dollars we're talking about, especially
Speaker 1: with Medicare and Medicaid. That's what the Secretary of HHS
Speaker 1: is overseeing. It's a humongous role. He's one of the
Speaker 1: most It's one of the most prominent roles within any
Speaker 1: presidential administration. You know what would be the biggest cabinet positions.
Speaker 1: Probably it's Secretary of State, Attorney General, Secretary of Defense,
Speaker 1: and Health and Human Services. I mean, it's probably it's
Speaker 1: probably the single most important I guess other than the
Speaker 1: Attorney General, which has some it's mostly domestic, but probably
Speaker 1: the single most important cabinet posts dealing with domestic issues
Speaker 1: is AHHS. So bisserah is richly rewarded for his resistance,
Speaker 1: and when he was nominated for HHS and got confirmed
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one, Republicans were understandably kind of bewildered.
Speaker 1: I mean, he seems like the kind of person who
Speaker 1: would have, you know, fit in well with the Biden
Speaker 1: administration as a Biden administration appointee. But AHHS, the guy
Speaker 1: has no background with healthcare whatsoever. Are we why make
Speaker 1: him in charge of HHS. He seems to have had
Speaker 1: no sort of interaction with intersection with expertise in the
Speaker 1: healthcare industry at all. And the only answer that could
Speaker 1: come back was that jab or Basera was just a
Speaker 1: total abortion radical, even though I would say abortion is
Speaker 1: not healthcare at all. Maybe if you want to argue
Speaker 1: it's healthcare adjacent. I guess Visarah was an aggressive proponent
Speaker 1: of legal abortion, and that was like the only thing
Speaker 1: the Biden administration could sort of point to as sort
Speaker 1: of sort of relevant hhustice experience. And but Sarah carried
Speaker 1: over his aggressive left wing attitudes into HHS. I think
Speaker 1: it was during his testimony, during his confirmation hearings, he
Speaker 1: said that he could not think of a single legal
Speaker 1: restriction of abortion that he on abortion that he would support.
Speaker 1: I don't know, the third trimester, no, not one. And
Speaker 1: as Secretary of HHS, he carried over his pro abortion positions.
Speaker 1: I mean, one of the things he tried to do
Speaker 1: was after Rove Wade was overturned, the Biden administration tried
Speaker 1: to interpret m TALA, which is a federal law, the
Speaker 1: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. M TALA is basically,
Speaker 1: it's this law that was originally passed in nineteen eighty six,
Speaker 1: and it governs emergency rooms and hospitals that for hospitals
Speaker 1: that receive Medicare patients. So it's certain kinds of standards
Speaker 1: for emergency rooms. This novel and interpretation of MTALA that
Speaker 1: had never before been seen or done or attempted to
Speaker 1: say that every emergency room in America has to offer
Speaker 1: abortion services, a totally novel interpretation that would violate the
Speaker 1: state laws of a number of states that had outlawed abortion.
Speaker 1: President Trump has dropped that interpretation of MTALA immediately upon
Speaker 1: assuming office. So I despise Javier Bessara, but I want
Speaker 1: you guys to listen to this remarkable interview. If you
Speaker 1: want to watch it yourself after this, you finished listening
Speaker 1: to this show, go to my Twitter account Twitter dot
Speaker 1: com slash Fresno Johnny at Fresno Johnny, I've retweeted it.
Speaker 1: This was an interview that the Sarah sat down for
Speaker 1: with the Fox broadcast news television station in law Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: Fox eleven I think it's KTTV, and with their anchor
Speaker 1: Lex Michaelson, and he asks Bessarah this question about, well,
Speaker 1: you know, Democrats have run things for a while, what
Speaker 1: would you do different? I want you guys to listen
Speaker 1: to this answer. It's really remarkable. Here here's Alex Michaelson
Speaker 1: starting off with question, and Besarah starts trying to answer.
Speaker 2: Too expensive to live in California for a lot of people, right,
Speaker 2: that housing affordability, it is all the rest of that.
Speaker 2: But whose fault is that? Because Democrats have had a
Speaker 2: super majority in Sacramento for decades now run every statewide office,
Speaker 2: isn't that the Democrats fault?
Speaker 3: Well, it's a growing issue we've had. Remember we've had
Speaker 3: Republican governors as well. At home.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Arnold Towrzenegger was elected in two thousand and six.
Speaker 1: I gary you, so we're starting off great. Alex Michaelson says, Hey,
Speaker 1: whose fault is it that we have high costs of living?
Speaker 1: Housing costs? Democrats have controlled everything, And but Sarah says, oh,
Speaker 1: well we've had Republican governors. Yeah, but not for fifteen years.
Speaker 1: You're gonna blame Arnold Schwarzenegger. What's next? You're gonna drag
Speaker 1: up George Duke masion.
Speaker 3: We continue to you homes in California two thousand and six.
Speaker 3: We're too expensive back then.
Speaker 2: You know, but it's gone up a lot in the
Speaker 2: last twenty years.
Speaker 3: We have not tackled it the way we should. And
Speaker 3: I think principally, the reason we have this issue in
Speaker 3: California on prices is because we haven't built enough, and
Speaker 3: that means it's a type market. Everyone still wants to
Speaker 3: come to California. People may be levy, but there are
Speaker 3: a whole bunch of people who would love to be
Speaker 3: at a live in California.
Speaker 1: But from a policy Okay, so here's we haven't built enough.
Speaker 1: He refuses to say that it's the Democrat's fault. We
Speaker 1: haven't tackled the issue. Well, who is the we here?
Speaker 1: First he disclaims it by trying to somehow drag up
Speaker 1: Republican governors. He cannot, and again he has to drag
Speaker 1: out the corpses of you know, Arnold Schwarzenegger and I
Speaker 1: don't know Pete Will, I don't know unnamed Republican governors,
Speaker 1: again refusing to acknowledge the last fifteen years we've had
Speaker 1: a Democrat governor and Democrat supermajorities in the legislature. So
Speaker 1: whose fault is it? We need to build more? Ah,
Speaker 1: what a novel solution that everyone's been saying for the
Speaker 1: last fifteen years and no one has actually done. We continue, let's.
Speaker 2: See perspective, what specific change are you proposing that would
Speaker 2: be different than the status quo right now, that would
Speaker 2: make a difference and make prices less in California.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I can tell you that status quo business as
Speaker 3: usual is not on California California voter's mind as the
Speaker 3: thing to do. And so I think all of us
Speaker 3: are going to be talking change. But here's what I
Speaker 3: would do. I would take the experience I had having
Speaker 3: to lead this country at the Department of Health and
Speaker 3: Human Services out of a pandemic, a once in a
Speaker 3: lifetime pandemic, having to negotiate for the first time in
Speaker 3: our history the lower prices for prescription drugs of some
Speaker 3: of them.
Speaker 1: Do you notice that we're not even close to approaching
Speaker 1: an answer to that question? He says, all that no
Speaker 1: one wants the status quo. I would take my experience
Speaker 1: that I had, as Ah says, negotiating drug prices during
Speaker 1: the pandemic a once in a lifetime event. And if
Speaker 1: you're wondering, okay, well is he going to get around
Speaker 1: to an answer here, Well, keep waiting.
Speaker 3: The most expensive drugs that our seniors on Medicare program
Speaker 3: have to use, I would say, you need to bring
Speaker 3: the problem right to the table with the best experts there.
Speaker 3: You scrub it and then what whatever is left, whatever's
Speaker 3: clean and survives. That's what you do. And we've not
Speaker 3: been willing to do that because of all the politics,
Speaker 3: all the old.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, all right, so much to work with here. Okay,
Speaker 1: Remember he was asked about what is a specific policy
Speaker 1: proposal that you Javier Basera, You Javier Baserro, who is
Speaker 1: running for governor of California, doing this interview on a
Speaker 1: big TV station in Los Angeles. Right after he announces,
Speaker 1: Javier Basera, what specific policy would you enact to reduce
Speaker 1: cost of living in particularly for home prices. His answer,
Speaker 1: after all the bs and throat clearing about how wonderful
Speaker 1: he was during a once in a lifetime pandemic and
Speaker 1: helping out our seniors with lower cost of drugs from medicare,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, usual politician, Yes, he finally says he
Speaker 1: would get a bunch of experts together, bring all the
Speaker 1: ideas to the table and scrub it out. He keeps
Speaker 1: using that verb scrub it out until we find what's left.
Speaker 1: Let's think about what that means. What he means, I
Speaker 1: think what he's saying is I don't actually have an idea.
Speaker 1: My idea is to gather experts together, get their ideas,
Speaker 1: and distill them down. So why the hell would we
Speaker 1: vote for you? Why don't we vote for some of
Speaker 1: these experts. They're the guys with ideas. Why are we
Speaker 1: voting for you? And here he is a big time
Speaker 1: interview on a big television news broadcast in Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: What specific he's acknowledging nobody wants the status quo and
Speaker 1: his idea is gather all the experts together and listen
Speaker 1: to them, as if Democrats haven't been doing that for
Speaker 1: a while. And this is a thing with jab Or
Speaker 1: Bessera that I think I'm starting to learn here what
Speaker 1: was his approach to COVID. His approach was that of
Speaker 1: the Biden administration, which was effectively, trust the experts. We
Speaker 1: do what the public health so called experts tell us.
Speaker 1: We should do. Whatever the sort of credential middle management
Speaker 1: professional managerial class tells us to do, That's what we do.
Speaker 1: As if that hasn't been a major part of California
Speaker 1: governance over the last fifteen years. The expert opinions of academia, government,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Saying that your plan for reducing affordability is
Speaker 1: just to gather all the experts together and scrub out
Speaker 1: their ideas until you come up with the best solution.
Speaker 1: That's no proposal at all. You're hiding the foot. You
Speaker 1: either actually do have ideas of what you're going to
Speaker 1: do and you're just afraid to say them, or you
Speaker 1: don't even have an idea, in which case, why on
Speaker 1: earth would we vote for you for governor? And either
Speaker 1: this is Javi orb Sarah, we're talking about Javierbserra, former
Speaker 1: Attorney General of California, the secretary of HHS. This guy
Speaker 1: is extremely plugged in with national and California Democrat politics,
Speaker 1: within the legal community, within academia. Like it's not like
Speaker 1: he can't get those experts now, it's not like he
Speaker 1: couldn't have gotten those experts at any time over the
Speaker 1: last two months. And it's not like he's a total dummy.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's an attorney, he's been in public policy,
Speaker 1: he's been a member of the House, he's been involved
Speaker 1: and concerned with California politics. He was Attorney General of California.
Speaker 1: In theory, nobody should understand California public policy issues or
Speaker 1: few people should understand California public policy issues better than
Speaker 1: he does. You mean to tell me he couldn't have
Speaker 1: gathered those experts together to scrub their ideas out on
Speaker 1: his own and then, like you know, come to the table,
Speaker 1: maybe do all that scrubbing that allegedly he's gonna do
Speaker 1: before he sits down for this interview. When we return,
Speaker 1: we will see Javier Abisserra yet again not answer anything
Speaker 1: that he would do as governor of California. That is
Speaker 1: next on the John Girardi Show. Javier Bessera, former Attorney
Speaker 1: General of California than the former Secretary of Health and
Speaker 1: Human Services under Barack Obama, announced that he is running
Speaker 1: for governor of California. The only person in America who
Speaker 1: might be worse than Kamala Harris. And he had this
Speaker 1: remarkable interview with Fox eleven in Los Angeles and with
Speaker 1: their news anchor Elex Michaelson. It's remarkable in interview in
Speaker 1: which Michaelson gives him opportunity after opportunity to say, what
Speaker 1: specific policies would you propose or push for that are
Speaker 1: different from what the Democrat status quo in Sacramento has
Speaker 1: advanced over the last fifteen years, Democrats have had total
Speaker 1: control over everything. They've had total control over the governor's man,
Speaker 1: the governor's does the governor have a mansion in California,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Over the governor's office, over the State Assembly,
Speaker 1: over the State Senate, over the courts, over the whole
Speaker 1: executive branch apparatus, all the appointed boards, everything. Democrats have
Speaker 1: had complete control for fifteen years. And housing affordability is terrible.
Speaker 1: And we're still dealing with these same problems that Jerry
Speaker 1: Brown and Gavin Newsom said they would deal with when
Speaker 1: they started running for governor. So what are you going
Speaker 1: to do differently? And Bessarah just won't say what he's
Speaker 1: going to do. Let's listen again to this exchange between
Speaker 1: Michaelson and Bessarah Born.
Speaker 2: But from a policy perspective, what specific change are you
Speaker 2: proposing that would be different than the status quo right
Speaker 2: now that would make a difference and make prices less
Speaker 2: in California.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I can tell you that status quo business as
Speaker 3: usual is not on California California voter's mind as the
Speaker 3: thing to do. And so I think all almost going
Speaker 3: to be talking change. But here's what I would do.
Speaker 1: All of us are going to be talking change, but
Speaker 1: here's what I would do. Do you really no content
Speaker 1: was transmitted at the start of that question. That was
Speaker 1: a throat clearing hamahmahama. Let me think of something to say. Here,
Speaker 1: he goes, I.
Speaker 3: Would take the experience I had having to lead this
Speaker 3: country at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Speaker 1: All right, this is where he starts preaching about how
Speaker 1: wonderful he was at HHS and helping out seniors, negotiating
Speaker 1: price for Medicare drugs, all the normal politician bull crap
Speaker 1: where they try, you know, just appealing to senior citizen
Speaker 1: voters because they're the best, most reliable voters anyway.
Speaker 3: The lower prices for prescription drugs of oh my god,
Speaker 3: expensive drugs that are seniors on that, I would say,
Speaker 3: you need to bring the problem right to the table
Speaker 3: with the best experts. There, you scrub it and then
Speaker 3: whatever is left, whatever's clean and survives. That's what you do.
Speaker 3: And we've not been willing to do that because of
Speaker 3: all the politics, all the old ways of doing things.
Speaker 1: All right, let's listen to that. Let's think about that answer.
Speaker 1: So we talked about that in the last segment. His
Speaker 1: proposal is to gather all the experts, bring all the
Speaker 1: ideas for how to Apparently this is for lowering costs
Speaker 1: of housing to the table. Scrub it his words, not mine,
Speaker 1: Scrub it and see what's left over, which, as I
Speaker 1: said in the last segment, why are we voting for you? Then,
Speaker 1: if you haven't already done that, you, Javier Bacerra, who
Speaker 1: have ready access to any experts you want. Okay, you
Speaker 1: were the secretary of HHS, you were a former attorney general.
Speaker 1: You have plenty of friends in academia, in the legal realm,
Speaker 1: in public policy. Likely you can get those expert opinions
Speaker 1: anytime you want. You could have gotten those expert opinions,
Speaker 1: surveyed them, scrub them out and then actually, you know,
Speaker 1: had a policy proposal before you announce you you were
Speaker 1: running for governor, before you sat down for this interview, Like,
Speaker 1: why should we vote for you if you know, I
Speaker 1: don't want to vote for a governor who I don't
Speaker 1: know and he doesn't even know apparently what he's going
Speaker 1: to do. He's just gonna wait until he hears from
Speaker 1: the experts. Secondly, he says during that answer. We haven't
Speaker 1: been willing to do that, i e. Gather together experts,
Speaker 1: get all their ideas on the table, and scrub it
Speaker 1: out to see what the best ideas are because of
Speaker 1: all the politics, he says, what politics. Democrats control every
Speaker 1: statewide office, from governor to insurance commissioner, governor, lieutenant governor,
Speaker 1: Secretary of State, Attorney general, insurance commissioner, what is a treasurer.
Speaker 1: They own the courts, They own all of the executive
Speaker 1: appointee boards like the California Air Resources Board, the California
Speaker 1: Coastal Commission, everything. And they don't just have a super
Speaker 1: majority in the state legislature. You need a two thirds
Speaker 1: majority in the state legislature to do certain things like
Speaker 1: qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot or increased taxes.
Speaker 1: You need a two thirds majority in the state legislature
Speaker 1: to do that. Democrats don't just have a super majority.
Speaker 1: They have a super duper majority. They have a three
Speaker 1: quarters majority in the Assembly and in the Senate, sixty
Speaker 1: of eighty votes in the Assembly, thirty of forty votes
Speaker 1: in the Senate. Because of all the politics. What politics
Speaker 1: are you talking about? There are no politics in California.
Speaker 1: On a certain level. Nobody disagree agrees with each other.
Speaker 1: Who is in charge. It's one party rule. Also, you
Speaker 1: haven't had the willingness to gather all the experts. What
Speaker 1: do you mean? That's what the Democrat Party does. They
Speaker 1: completely own academia. You really think that the Democrats in
Speaker 1: Sacramento would have been unwilling to gather together or haven't.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they have at some point over the last
Speaker 1: fifteen years. Gather together some kind of blue ribbon commission
Speaker 1: of professors from UC Berkeley, UC Davis, Stanford, cal Stanford, UCLA,
Speaker 1: USC Gather a bunch of liberal professors together who know
Speaker 1: a thing or two about housing and economics and housing
Speaker 1: affordability and whatever. Gather them all together in a room
Speaker 1: and get policy proposals. You think no one's been willing
Speaker 1: to do that. Everyone's been willing to do that. He
Speaker 1: is so full of it. His isyes are turning brown.
Speaker 1: When we return, Javier Basera is the cardboard box with
Speaker 1: the letter D on it. Next on the John Girardi Show,
Speaker 1: Javier Basera announced he's running for governor. He does his
Speaker 1: first interview and he refuses to say a single thing
Speaker 1: he would do differently from other Democrats who have gone
Speaker 1: before him on the issue of housing affordability. Even though
Speaker 1: I was saying, oh, no, one wants a status quo.
Speaker 1: His grand idea is to gather together experts and basically
Speaker 1: see what they have to say. Here is again his
Speaker 1: interview with Lex Michaelson from Fox eleven in Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: Here he is again offered an opportunity to say what
Speaker 1: he would do differently from the last fifteen years of
Speaker 1: Democrat governors and not answering there.
Speaker 2: A specific policy change that you would propose to make
Speaker 2: a difference on some of these affordability issues.
Speaker 1: I think so housing, I think so, Oh good. I'm
Speaker 1: glad you think so. Maybe you could know, so let's keep.
Speaker 3: Going a development. I think everyone agrees we don't build enough.
Speaker 3: It's not enough to say, okay, we all agree we
Speaker 3: don't build enough, and they're not do anything about it. Okay.
Speaker 3: If we all agree, then everyone from all sides of
Speaker 3: this sit down scrub.
Speaker 1: It from all sides of this. What do you mean
Speaker 1: from all sides of it? Democrats have three quarters of
Speaker 1: the votes in the state legislature. They can do whatever
Speaker 1: they want. Republicans have nothing. They can say, Republicans have
Speaker 1: been saying ideas different from the status quo, and you've
Speaker 1: ignored them for fifteen years. He continues, by the way,
Speaker 1: with this metaphor of getting expert ideas together and scrubbing
Speaker 1: them out here he is.
Speaker 3: Sit down, scrub it because this is what I had
Speaker 3: to do with COVID. This is what I had to
Speaker 3: do when we're trying to get rid of monkey pocks, MPOs.
Speaker 3: This is what I had to do when we were
Speaker 3: figuring out what prices to negotiate on the drugs. You
Speaker 3: figure out where we could go, and then you go
Speaker 3: and you just say, damn the torpedoes, we gotta go.
Speaker 1: Again. His question was is there a specific policy proposal
Speaker 1: you would enact, and his answer again was no. His
Speaker 1: answer was gathered together expert opinions and pursue them. Now,
Speaker 1: this leads me to my thesis of Javier Besera the
Speaker 1: cardboard box with the letter D written on it. I'll
Speaker 1: admit I had texted friends when I first before I
Speaker 1: saw this interview, and it was really the first time
Speaker 1: I'd really sat down and watched Javier Bessera like talk
Speaker 1: at length, do a long form, do an interview. I'll
Speaker 1: admit that I had texted some friends after be Sarah
Speaker 1: announced that he was running. Besarah might actually be worse
Speaker 1: than Kamala Harris. I think he might actually be smarter
Speaker 1: than she is, or maybe more effective than she is. Well,
Speaker 1: after seeing this interview, I'm not sure that even that's true.
Speaker 1: This interview might have been worse than as as bad
Speaker 1: as the worst Kamala Harris interview. He will not say
Speaker 1: something he will do about policy. All he can do
Speaker 1: is talk about gathering together expert opinions. That's what he
Speaker 1: repeatedly says. He would gather together expert opinions, scrub them
Speaker 1: out to find the best opinions, and then go with that,
Speaker 1: which again would raise the question of one, why are
Speaker 1: you running for governor? Why don't we get some of
Speaker 1: these experts to run for governor? Two you mean you
Speaker 1: can't do that now before you run for governor, Like,
Speaker 1: maybe we would rather vote for someone who we know
Speaker 1: what they're going to do. It's not like you are
Speaker 1: incapable of gathering together expert opinion, surveying expert opinion yourself,
Speaker 1: and coming forward with your own ideas. And it leads
Speaker 1: me to this, I think Javier basera is an empty vessel.
Speaker 1: It's one of the defining features of modern day democrat governance.
Speaker 1: Trust the experts, trust the science, trust the experts, where
Speaker 1: we look to the received wisdom of institutions as are
Speaker 1: guiding loadstar as are guiding light. You saw this with
Speaker 1: stuff like content moderation on Facebook and Twitter before Elon
Speaker 1: Musk bought it that basically, what were they defining as
Speaker 1: COVID misinformation quote, Well, they would just turn to if
Speaker 1: you're gonna have a policy of not allowing information to
Speaker 1: be spread, you need some authority to define what is
Speaker 1: correct information and what is dangerous misinformation. And so Facebook, Twitter,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Were reliant upon institutions HHS Centers for Disease Control,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And all the big social media companies were
Speaker 1: doing that. They were just appealing to them, overlooking the
Speaker 1: possibility that those institutions could be wrong, that those institutions
Speaker 1: could be subject to things like regulatory capture. Regulatory capture
Speaker 1: is the concept you learn about as a lawyer in
Speaker 1: regulatory law that if you're a regulator works for let's say,
Speaker 1: the pharmaceutical industry, you become a very attractive future potential
Speaker 1: hire for companies within the pharmaceutical industry. If you work
Speaker 1: for HHS, if you work for the Centers for Disease Control,
Speaker 1: if you work for the FDA, you're a very attractive
Speaker 1: possible future hire for Peiser. Maybe Peiser wants an FDA
Speaker 1: official to leave the FDA and come work for them.
Speaker 1: You know, at a private industry salary might be three
Speaker 1: x or four x what you're making working for the government.
Speaker 1: Come work for Pfiser instead for four x and help
Speaker 1: us to comply with what the FDA wants us to
Speaker 1: do with FDA rules and things like that. So there's
Speaker 1: this inherent there. There is this tendency within regulatory agencies
Speaker 1: to treat the industries that they regulate with kid gloves,
Speaker 1: because from top to bottom, from the head of the
Speaker 1: FDA all the way down to low level flunkies, there's
Speaker 1: this thought that, well, hey, how tough do we want
Speaker 1: to regulate this industry when it could hire us. You
Speaker 1: know that there's several former FDA heads went on to
Speaker 1: become members of the board of directors of Pfizer, guessing
Speaker 1: it's unlikely they will unlikely they will extend such an
Speaker 1: offer to RFK Junior now all of this should sort
Speaker 1: of shade our confidence in relying upon experts, relying upon
Speaker 1: the professional managerial class. You look at COVID, for example,
Speaker 1: which Bessara is like touting his experience during COVID, and
Speaker 1: like Bisarah, who did nothing other than I'm just doing
Speaker 1: what the experts tell me, doing what the technocrats who
Speaker 1: work at HHS, CDC, what Anthony Fauci and all of
Speaker 1: his ilk Francis Collins, I'm just gonna do what they
Speaker 1: tell me. I'm gonna keep pushing their vaccine mandates. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna keep pushing all all of the stuff that they want.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm gonna keep pushing. And I'm gonna trash
Speaker 1: states like Georgia, States like Florida under Republican governors who
Speaker 1: bucked what that professional managerial class told them to do. Florida, Georgia,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Reopened their states way before everyone else did,
Speaker 1: to great success, and in retrospect, a lot of people
Speaker 1: look at how long they kept schools closed. And by
Speaker 1: the way, Bisarah, like any big time California at state
Speaker 1: level policy, Tian has to kiss the butt of teachers unions,
Speaker 1: and he continued to kiss the butt of teachers unions.
Speaker 1: While he was secretary of HHS, schools stayed closed probably
Speaker 1: a year longer than they should have, with tremendous learning
Speaker 1: loss across the country for those districts that remained closed
Speaker 1: for a really long time. But Sarah, as Secretary of HHS,
Speaker 1: sat around twiddling his thumbs. He trusted the experts, or
Speaker 1: the so called experts. And if you're a politician and
Speaker 1: you just say I'm just gonna do what the experts say,
Speaker 1: then again I asked the question, why are we voting
Speaker 1: for you? Why don't we vote for some of these experts.
Speaker 1: I mean, they seem like the ones who have all
Speaker 1: the ideas. All you're doing is being a vessel for
Speaker 1: their ideas. You don't seem to have any ideas of
Speaker 1: your own. Your idea is just do what the experts say.
Speaker 1: And so much of how liberals try to frame what
Speaker 1: they believe, they try to frame it as trusting the experts. Well,
Speaker 1: A COG says that abortion pill reversal is silly. The
Speaker 1: American College of partstitcians kind of collegists, so therefore the
Speaker 1: abortion pill reversal process is bad. A COG says abortion
Speaker 1: is just normal health care. So therefore we're right in
Speaker 1: saying normal health care. You know, the American Academy of
Speaker 1: Pediatrics says that transgender surgeries on children are are okay,
Speaker 1: So and transgenderism is, you know, all the important, the
Speaker 1: whole ideology of transgenderism. So therefore we appeal to the experts.
Speaker 1: We appeal to the experts, ignoring the fact that, hey,
Speaker 1: you don't you don't think that maybe the American Academy
Speaker 1: of Pediatrics likes money, likes performing unnecessary surgeries, maybe for money,
Speaker 1: and maybe rationalizing how necessary those surgeries are. Let's note
Speaker 1: that in the UK, where doctors don't have as much
Speaker 1: of a profit motive because it's a government run healthcare system,
Speaker 1: they've stopped doing transgender surgeries on kids because they realize
Speaker 1: it yields no benefits as far as kids' mental health.
Speaker 1: The whole Democrat Party more and more is sort of
Speaker 1: trying to ground and premise itself on our beliefs are
Speaker 1: unchallengeable because so many of these expert institutions in academia
Speaker 1: and medicine and law in this and that are dominated
Speaker 1: by the Left. And therefore, when we say what we say,
Speaker 1: you're not just questioning us for staking out one political
Speaker 1: position out of many. You are challenging God Almighty on
Speaker 1: high in the form of some highly credentialed maybe not
Speaker 1: that bright liberal who says it shall be so. It's
Speaker 1: how California has been governed largely for fifteen years, the
Speaker 1: consensus of liberals in academia, in activism, in you know,
Speaker 1: middle management, government, bureaucrat positions. That's what has dragged California
Speaker 1: as more and more liberals are noticing, like Ezra Kleine,
Speaker 1: the columnist from New York Times is going on this
Speaker 1: wrote a book, going on this big world tour about
Speaker 1: how frustrated he is with liberal dominated states like California
Speaker 1: that can't get anything done, that are actually failures of
Speaker 1: governance when Democrats have completely controlled everything for a decade
Speaker 1: and a half. And Besarah is signaling here, I'm not
Speaker 1: doing a dang thing. We always joke about, you know,
Speaker 1: in a Republican dominated state or a Democrat dominated state,
Speaker 1: that if you have a cardboard box with the letter
Speaker 1: D or a cardboard box with the letter R written
Speaker 1: on it, it would win a statewide election. Javier Bessera
Speaker 1: is a cardboard box with a letter D. On it
Speaker 1: an empty vessel, a mirthless humorless character less personality less
Speaker 1: empty vessel. For whatever, the dominant Democrat controlling conventional wisdom
Speaker 1: is signaling no change from what we've had the last
Speaker 1: fifteen years under Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown when we return.
Speaker 1: Does this mean Kamala isn't running? I wonder? Next on
Speaker 1: the John Girardi Show, So Javier Bsara announces he's running
Speaker 1: for governor, what does that mean about Kamala Harris. I
Speaker 1: don't think it is any kind of evidence that she's running,
Speaker 1: and I think it might be evidence that she's not.
Speaker 1: For all of Bessara's flaws, and I've enumerated lots of them,
Speaker 1: he is plugged into both California and national Democrat politics.
Speaker 1: He was a very prominent member of the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: He was former Attorney General of California. He understand, you know,
Speaker 1: he had to get the backing of big time California donors.
Speaker 1: He's not a total dummy, and he's a pretty prominent guy.
Speaker 1: You know, before Harris lost, he probably would have been
Speaker 1: the most prominent name that would have possibly jumped into
Speaker 1: the California governor's race. I find it and look, Harris
Speaker 1: has only two options available to her if she wants
Speaker 1: to remain a significant figure in American politics. She either
Speaker 1: runs for governor of California in twenty six or runs
Speaker 1: for president in twenty twenty eight. They're kind of mutually
Speaker 1: exclusive paths. I find it it's hard to think Besarah
Speaker 1: would jump in if he knew Harris was jumping in,
Speaker 1: because she's gonna blow whoever runs against her for governor
Speaker 1: out of the water just on name recognition alone. I
Speaker 1: think this might mean Harris is running for president in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight. That'll do it. John Giorady shows you
Speaker 1: you next time on Power Talk