Company logo
Search
Company logo

Earlier this month, I went on a California “cleanse”—a two-week fast from the Golden State’s at-times daft and dubious political and policy choices.

Not that it was a total break from the surreal.

I spent the “cleanse” in sweltering South Carolina, smack dab in the middle of a Republican primary that was the result of Senator Lindsey Graham’s unexpected death (a land to where California’s outgoing governor and likely presidential candidate, Gavin Newsom, will soon be headed now that South Carolina will be the first state to hold a sanctioned primary in January 2028).

The tough part about a cleanse: returning to reality.

In that regard, here are three items that have my attention.

Is Sacramento Dullsville? Monday, the final day of August, marks the deadline for the California State Legislature to forward bills to Newsom for his signature or veto. Last year, 917 such measures cleared the Legislature—794 signed into law and 123 vetoed.

Ordinarily, this would be a time of great intrigue in Sacramento. It is, after all, an election year and it’s the second year in a two-year legislative cycle, meaning it’s the last gasp for measures that didn’t make the cut in 2025. Add the fact that it’s also Newsom’s last chance to shape his legacy—and add to his credentials as a presidential wannabe—and the result should be plenty of political intrigue afoot.

Instead, the lead-up to August 31 has been . . . well, kind of dull.

And that could be due in part to two reasons.

Publicly, at least, there’s little in the way of bad blood between Newsom and the Democratic-run legislature (talk about a one-sided relationship: spring 1980 was the last time a California governor suffered the indignity of a veto override).

The other consideration: Newsom’s wandering eye (politically, that is). Earlier this month, rather than hunkering down in Sacramento and trying to police the flow of legislative traffic his way, California’s governor jetted off to Michigan to lend his support to the state party’s cause (Michigan, by the way, now batting fifth in the Democrats’ 2028 primary lineup).

Was it a good use of Newsom’s time? This Politico podcast suggests gubernatorial fumbles and missed opportunities. Add the cringe-worthy visual of Newsom holding a “beer summit” with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (part of Newsom’s ongoing podcast series that seemingly has little to do with running the Golden State) and it raises the question of the California governor’s interest in his current day job. 

This changes, of course, when Newsom has a chance to turn his bill-signing period into a 2028 preamble (depending on the day and the policy, he’ll vacillate between a big-hearted progressive and a big-brained triangulator).

But for now, Sacramento is Dullsville.

Billions and billions . . . of culprits? One matter the Legislature purposely avoided, as it was certain to earn a gubernatorial veto: a one-time tax on California’s resident billionaires. Instead, the 5 percent tithe is on the November ballot in the form of Proposition 40.

Newsom opposes the ballot initiative, as does his likely replacement come November, former state attorney general Xavier Becerra (Prop. 40 has a seven-point lead in this recent poll, though it doesn’t enjoy majority support).

Alas, the two California Democratic heavyweights don’t speak for their state party, whose 235-member executive board formally endorsed the tax after two delegates switched sides. 

It’s not the first time the California Democratic Party has offended one of its headliners. In 2018, for example, state convention delegates snubbed the late Senator Dianne Feinstein by endorsing her more progressive challenger, former state Senate leader Kevin de León. 

But Democratic intraparty division over the billionaire tax may take a back seat to a different narrative: dissension within the ranks of the opposition campaign.

Per this California Post report, some of the billionaires who’ve lined up against the wealth tax disagree over tactics—specifically, should Building a Better California, which is principally funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, focus on Prop. 40 as opposed to its current approach, which is funding six concurrent ballot measures.     

Why this may sound familiar: in 2005, then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger went to the ballot in a November special election featuring a handful of initiatives threatening to reshape the balance of power in Sacramento (among his proposed reforms: slowing the growth of state spending; making teachers work longer to attain tenure; de-politicizing legislative and congressional redistricting; and restricting political spending by public-employee unions.

All of Arnold’s initiatives failed miserably, thanks in part to union spending to kill the measures, but also because there was no intellectual nexus holding the reforms together.

Will California history repeat itself this fall?

The long goodbye. At age eighty-six and retiring from Congress after nearly forty years of representing San Francisco in the nation’s capital, it’s safe to say that House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi is enjoying a long and sentimental farewell.

That in itself is something novel for House speakers of late: Kevin McCarthy didn’t last a year before he became the first House speaker to be ousted via a roll-call vote; Paul Ryan quit after tiring of Capitol Hill identity politics; John Boehner grew tired of dealing with recalcitrant House Republicans; Dennis Hastert retired after his party was on the receiving end of two election drubbings, only to end up in prison; Newt Gingrich resigned from office, one step ahead of the mob; and in 1994, Tom Foley suffered the indignity of being the first House speaker to be ousted via popular vote since 1860.

That said, there’s one remaining act for Pelosi: doing what she can from keeping her congressional seat from going to Democratic state Senator Scott Wiener.

As such, it’s a reminder that all politics is not only local (as another House speaker once proclaimed) but also personal.

In Wiener’s case, his offense would be announcing his congressional bid two weeks before Pelosi announced her retirement. Compounding matters: Wiener is not a relative (prior to 2025, the assumption was Pelosi’s documentarian, Christine, was the heiress apparent—though she’s now running for the same state Senate seat currently held by Wiener).

Wiener’s other offense: having the wrong chromosomes.

Pelosi reportedly has confided that she wants the seat to be held by a woman, keeping in the Bay Area tradition of herself, Feinstein, and former senator Barbara Boxer with lengthy stays in Washington. Indeed, gender was very much on display in the contest earlier this month when Pelosi lit into Team Wiener for an AI-powered parody chatbot she deemed “sexist” and “racist” for mocking his female rival, San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan.

Wiener’s response: “Nancy has basically taken over Connie’s campaign. I’m running an independent campaign with enormous grass-roots support, and no one has taken over my campaign.”

For a city hardly synonymous with manufacturing, San Franciso has long enjoyed machine politics, be it Gavin Newsom’s ascent to mayor and statewide office, or Kamala Harris’s journey from local district attorney to the vice presidency.

But in 2026, can machine politics deliver Nancy Pelosi one last win?

And how long before someone proposes that Pelosi replace Father Serra as a statute in the Capitol?

Expand
overlay image