Commentary: Gavin Newsom has lots to say. Is it worth listening?

Gavin Newsom has a new political podcast, in case you hadn't heard, and he's not the only one who's talking.

California's gallivanting governor has made national headlines and stirred no small amount of discussion among fellow Democrats by undertaking a series of cross-partisan conversations with the likes of MAGA megastars Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon.

Our columnists Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria have differing views on what Newsom has accomplished, what his aims may be and whether the governor should even be in the political chat-show business.

Here, they hash it out.

Barabak: Anita, I've thought long and hard, trying to find something good to say about Newsom's new side gig.

Ummm....

Still thinking.

The sound quality is decent. I'll give him that.

Chabria: Dear lord, are you really going to make me start my day defending Gavin Newsom?

I'll admit, I may be the only opinion writer in the U.S. who didn't slam the governor for his new podcast. And I'll stand by what I said in a previous column: The difference between idea and execution on this one is wider than the Gulf of America.

The idea of what Newsom means to do (I think) is smart and necessary — reach those voters that sincerely believed (and may still believe) that MAGA is the party of working families, long the territory of Democrats.

Many of those voters have left traditional media behind and are getting their so-called information from the podcasts of the Steve Bannons of the world. So wading into that swamp is something Democrats must do — it's little different to me than the many Democrats holding town halls in Republican districts where the representative is doing the DOGE duck-and-cover.

Can we at least find some common ground, Mark, that Democrats need to be communicating better, and to a wider audience?

Barabak: Common ground, achieved.

Yes, Democrats need to broaden their audience and refine their message. Though I'd point out the current cacophony isn't all that unusual for a party out of power. Sorry to inform the frustrated masses, but it's only when Democrats have a 2028 nominee that they'll have a singular voice and vision competing with President Trump and whomever Republicans serve up as their next standard-bearer.

I also don't have a huge problem with Democrats sitting down with the Charlie Kirks of the world, as odious as some of his antisemitic, race-baiting and Trump-worshipping comments have been. We could use more of that dialogue and folks willing to step out of their partisan shrink wrapping.

That said, I'm not sure why our governor isn't spending more time doing his job — you know, the one he was elected to and is being paid to perform. Wasn't there a bit of a conflagration in Southern California recently? Mightn't that be more important than filling the airwaves with more gaseous blah blah?

And if Newsom insists on having those kind of conversations, why not at least call out some of those odious statements or, say, fact-check Bannon's repeated lies about the 2020 election being stolen.

Cringy doesn't begin to describe Newsom's fawning performance. There are doormats that aren't as walked over as our prostrated governor.

Were you as grossed out as I was?

Chabria: It went beyond being grossed out. It was offensive and baffling to hear the leader of California allow so many lies and so much hate to go unchecked. I'm not asking him to jump on his chair and scream in Bannon's face (though that might boost ratings) but a simple "The 2020 election was not fraudulent" would be nice.

Now, back to the execution part. I agree with you that talking to the Kirks and Bannons is good. I also agree that allowing them to dominate the conversation and spread propaganda unchecked is a disservice to listeners and the Californians he represents — as you point out, he does have a day job.

I don't much care about the Democratic Party, but I do care about democracy. Our president is currently challenging the authority of the judiciary to fulfill its duty as a check on presidential power. The IRS has been gutted to the point that experts now expect tax revenue to plummet by $500 billion. Thousands of middle-class federal workers have been fired. The Department of Education may be no more.

The list goes on. The point is that, whether the member of the minority party or not, Americans need organized pushback for the good of the country. Whether that takes the form of a peaceful Tesla protest, a red-district town hall or a cringy podcast, I'll take it.

Do you see this as a normal political cycle? The Adam Schiff approach of letting nature take its course — that is, waiting for the right moment to strike back hard — as California's junior U.S. senator seems to prefer.

Barabak: I'd submit that "normal" was last seen leaving town nearly a decade ago, after Trump descended that gold-plated escalator to launch what them seemed like a whimsical bit of self-promotion. Who would have guessed he'd not only go to become president, twice, but emerge as the most dominant and significant figure on the national scene since Franklin D. Roosevelt?

These are, as you suggest, fraught and frightening times.

I agree it's important to resist, vigorously, the president's authoritarian impulses. It seems this 248-year-old experiment we call American democracy may very well rest in the hands of our highly politicized Supreme Court. That may not be terribly reassuring to many, but the fact is Democrats — a minority in the House and Senate — haven't as much power as some of the more frothing partisans out there presume.

It may seem like forever, and lord knows what horrific and lasting damage can be done in the meantime, but voters — the people! — won't have a chance to put the brakes on Trump and his wrecking ball until the 2026 midterm elections.

Which brings us to 2028 and back to Newsom. Other than flattering his ego and servicing his notably short attention span, the entire point of the governor's new podcast — the second one he's involved in, by the way — seems to be positioning himself for a full-fledged (as opposed to flirtatious) presidential run.

Do you suppose he's helping his cause?

Chabria: It remains to be seen. A successful podcast that pulls an untapped audience will be noticed come primary time. A flop that platforms right-wingers? Not so much.

Our governor is placing a long-shot bet on a race that's just starting.

How do you think it helps or hurts him, White House-wise?

Barabak: I don't see it helping. To the contrary, I see a lot of splice-able and dice-able moments that could be used against him in a Democratic nominating contest.

To cite just one, Michael Savage, the conservative radio personality, told a long, shaggy story that involved being served a hot dog while traveling on Air One. Proof, Savage said, that Trump was a "very sensitive guy to other people."

"I agree," Newsom eagerly nodded, referring to a president who has demonstrated countless times his empathy could easily fit inside a thimble, leaving plenty of room to spare.

Let's face it, Newsom is, as you suggest, a longshot to begin with. Not least because it's hard to see, after Kamala Harris' defeat, his party turning to another San Francisco Democrat as their savior.

But there is this consolation: Newsom has nicely positioned himself for one job after his term ends in January 2027. After showing his pliancy and eager accommodation of MAGA movers, Newsom should have no trouble landing a position as a maître d' or concierge at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.