logo
Gavin Newsom began his speech as a state governor. He ended it as a potential president

Gavin Newsom began his speech as a state governor. He ended it as a potential president

The Agea day ago

A month ago, Newsom seemed at times in danger of fading to the sidelines. At 57, he was playing out his final years as governor, since he is barred by term limits from seeking a third term.
He was facing the thankless burden of managing a huge state budget deficit, overseeing the rebuilding of Los Angeles after the January wildfires and grappling with Trump, as the president moved to undercut signature California programs, from high-speed rail to clean air measures. For much of 2024, Newsom had been closely tied to Joe Biden, acting as one of the former president's surrogates and defenders before Biden was forced out of the race.
Loading
Newsom had sought, in the first days of the Trump administration, to raise his profile and to influence the direction of the Democratic Party. He hosted a podcast – This is Gavin Newsom – in which he gave a platform to some of the leading figures in the Trump movement, including Bannon. He met Trump with a handshake at LAX when the president came to tour the damage from the fires. And he broke with many Democrats in saying that he thought that the participation of transgender athletes in women's sports was 'deeply unfair'.
Those actions made Newsom an unpopular figure with parts of the Democratic Party. It's unclear whether his abrupt change, from saying Democrats needed to work with Trump to his searing attacks on the president Tuesday, will feed apprehensions among some Democrats that Newsom is inauthentic or an opportunist.
But Newsom's stature, at least in his party, was likely elevated by a barrage of attacks from Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson and other GOP leaders in the aftermath of the demonstrations against the Trump administration's immigration policies. Trump suggested Newsom be placed under arrest; Johnson said he should be 'tarred and feathered.' As a result, the lame-duck governor of California has emerged as arguably the most prominent Democratic foil to Trump.
For his part, Newsom has seemed to relish parrying with Republicans on social media, responding to their comments with acid retorts that won him cheers from Democrats who had, not so long ago, been sceptical of Newsom's friendly podcast banter with right-wing figures.
'It gives Gavin the ability to be a leader of a resistance that is not contrived,' Rob Stutzman, a political strategist and a senior consultant to former Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said. 'It's real, because Trump has attacked him and his state.'
For all the plaudits he may be winning from Democrats, Newsom could face tough going should he decide to run. He comes from California, the symbol of blue America and the home of Kamala Harris, the former vice president who lost to Trump in November's election. And these next few weeks could prove increasingly difficult, as Newsom finds his fortunes tied both to what happens on the streets of Los Angeles and to the actions of the man in the White House.
Loading
David Axelrod, the former chief political aide to Barack Obama, said Newsom's 'message was very powerful'. But he warned that it is difficult to at once 'admonish the president for his provocative, escalatory actions,' while at the same time urging 'protesters to show restraint'.
Still, with his bristling attacks on Trump, Newsom may have positioned himself this week as the leader of the very resistance he once eschewed. The question is whether he can now do what so many other Democrats have failed to do over these chaotic five months: unite the party behind a strategy to weaken a president who has seemed invincible.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway
Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway

The Age

time23 minutes ago

  • The Age

Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway

The attack without warning by Israel against a range of targets across Iran is unprecedented, even by the new standards of behaviour established since the April 2024 Iranian strike against Israel. That attack, in turn, was carried out in response to Israel's strike against Iranian military personnel in Iran's diplomatic compound in Damascus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has characterised it as a necessary action to forestall the existential threat posed to his country by Iran's desire to weaponise its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Yet only a few months earlier, US President Donald Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified before the Senate intelligence committee that the intelligence community assessed Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons and nor had its supreme leader allowed such a program to be commenced. If they weren't reacting to an imminent threat, then why choose to bomb Iranian targets now? The answer is because they could. Or more particularly because the environment that would allow them to do so would not be any better in the future. They had long wanted to conduct such an attack, but the political and military conditions have not allowed them to. That has changed. To begin with, Iran's air defences were significantly degraded as a result of Israel's October 2024 air attack. It takes some time to rebuild such a capability, and the longer Israel waited, the more likely it would be that Iran could mount some sort of air defence against an attack. In addition, Tehran's 'Axis of Resistance' had been significantly degraded over the past 18 months – in particular, Lebanese Hezbollah has suffered leadership decapitation and significant personnel and materiel losses. Its resupply routes through Syria have also been significantly compromised with the fall of the Assad regime. In the past, such an attack by Israel could be expected to elicit a robust response from Hezbollah against northern Israel; today the group is both able to respond but also must determine whether its priority is to rebuild domestically or to support its Iranian ideological and financial sponsor. And for all its public signalling, there are many in the Trump administration who support the attack against Iran. Trump has cast himself as the master dealmaker and as someone who wants to avoid war. He has described the Iranians as tough negotiators and claimed they were close to a deal. But Netanyahu accused the Iranians of stalling and dragging out the talks with no prospect of acceding to Washington's non-negotiable demand to stop processing any uranium. Loading Trump denied any US involvement in the attack, but Netanyahu was quick to praise him in his televised address following the attack. Trump is playing coy. While the next round of talks with Iran were to be held on Sunday, there is virtually no chance of them going on while Iran is being attacked. Diplomacy is a slow process, and there is a feeling that the diplomatic track had by no means been exhausted.

Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway
Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway

Sydney Morning Herald

time24 minutes ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway

The attack without warning by Israel against a range of targets across Iran is unprecedented, even by the new standards of behaviour established since the April 2024 Iranian strike against Israel. That attack, in turn, was carried out in response to Israel's strike against Iranian military personnel in Iran's diplomatic compound in Damascus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has characterised it as a necessary action to forestall the existential threat posed to his country by Iran's desire to weaponise its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Yet only a few months earlier, US President Donald Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified before the Senate intelligence committee that the intelligence community assessed Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons and nor had its supreme leader allowed such a program to be commenced. If they weren't reacting to an imminent threat, then why choose to bomb Iranian targets now? The answer is because they could. Or more particularly because the environment that would allow them to do so would not be any better in the future. They had long wanted to conduct such an attack, but the political and military conditions have not allowed them to. That has changed. To begin with, Iran's air defences were significantly degraded as a result of Israel's October 2024 air attack. It takes some time to rebuild such a capability, and the longer Israel waited, the more likely it would be that Iran could mount some sort of air defence against an attack. In addition, Tehran's 'Axis of Resistance' had been significantly degraded over the past 18 months – in particular, Lebanese Hezbollah has suffered leadership decapitation and significant personnel and materiel losses. Its resupply routes through Syria have also been significantly compromised with the fall of the Assad regime. In the past, such an attack by Israel could be expected to elicit a robust response from Hezbollah against northern Israel; today the group is both able to respond but also must determine whether its priority is to rebuild domestically or to support its Iranian ideological and financial sponsor. And for all its public signalling, there are many in the Trump administration who support the attack against Iran. Trump has cast himself as the master dealmaker and as someone who wants to avoid war. He has described the Iranians as tough negotiators and claimed they were close to a deal. But Netanyahu accused the Iranians of stalling and dragging out the talks with no prospect of acceding to Washington's non-negotiable demand to stop processing any uranium. Loading Trump denied any US involvement in the attack, but Netanyahu was quick to praise him in his televised address following the attack. Trump is playing coy. While the next round of talks with Iran were to be held on Sunday, there is virtually no chance of them going on while Iran is being attacked. Diplomacy is a slow process, and there is a feeling that the diplomatic track had by no means been exhausted.

Investors are piling back into the momentum trade, hoping for records
Investors are piling back into the momentum trade, hoping for records

AU Financial Review

time29 minutes ago

  • AU Financial Review

Investors are piling back into the momentum trade, hoping for records

Investors are increasingly shrugging off the months-long sharemarket volatility sparked by the Trump administration's aggressive trade policies and have become hopeful that, with the worst of the tariff shocks over, Australian stocks will keep breaking records over the next six months. While the S&P/ASX 200 pulled back from its all-time high on Friday amid news of Israeli missile and drone strikes on Iran, the benchmark index has still jumped 19 per cent since its April low. That puts it on the cusp of a technical bull market, or a 20 per cent climb from its recent trough.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store