Mountain Views News, Combined Edition Saturday, August 21, 2021

15 Mountain View News Saturday, August 21, 2021 VOTE NO ON THE NEWSOM RECALL 15 Mountain View News Saturday, August 21, 2021 VOTE NO ON THE NEWSOM RECALL 
SUSAN HENDERSON 


THE MOUNTAIN VIEWS NEWS URGES

Editor/Publisher 


EVERYONE TO VOTE NO ON THE RECALL OF 
GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM 

 If we want to save our state, we must act responsibly and Vote No on this recall effort. The cost of this recall will be between $200 - $400 million dollars in a dishonorable attempt to remove our current 
governor whois up for re-election in 2022 anyway, Much of that money will come from sources outside of California. This recall is a disgrace to the democratic process and a waste of time and money. 
By now you should have received your ballot in the mail. Please vote and return it as soon as possible. Don't underestimate the importance of each and every vote. By now we should have learned 
enough lessons about what happens when we don't take our responsibilites as citizens seriously. This election is important. Vote and please vote no! 
In an unprecedented move for this paper, we refer you to the LA Times Editorial on the subject published on 8/13/2021 who expresses our Vote No position very well. 

WAKE UP, CALIFORNIA! REMOVING GAVIN NEWSOM WOULD BE A DISASTER 

FROM THE LA TIMES 
EDITORIAL BOARD 

QUESTION 1 [ON YOUR 
BALLOT] 

Ballots for the Sept. 14 special 
recall election have been 
mailed to 22 million California 
voters. The ballot poses two 
questions. The first is whether 
Gov. Gavin Newsom should be 
removed from office. 

The correct response is a 
strong, unequivocal no. 

Removing Newsom and replacing 
him with an untested and 
unprepared alternative who 
wouldn’t represent the values 
of most Californians would be 
a disaster. It would doom the 
state to months of political and 
bureaucratic dysfunction and 
economic uncertainty. And for 
what purpose? 

Newsom, who is 53 years old 
and 2½ years into his first term 
as governor, hasn’t been perfect 
— but show us a governor 
who has. His public communications 
have been muddled 
and confusing at times. He has 
not worked as well with the 
Legislature as he could. He has 
occasionally promised more 
than he could deliver. His prodigious 
fundraising has raised 
legitimate concerns about the 
role of money in politics. 

These are things that voters 
would appropriately consider 
during a regular reelection 
campaign, but they do not justify 
using the extraordinary 
power of recall to remove a 
legitimately elected governor 
in favor of someone who may 
only have a sliver of support 
from voters. Indeed, by our 
reckoning, Newsom’s missteps 
are minor when compared to 
the good he has done for California 
as one of the nation’s 
strongest leaders on the COVID-
19 pandemic. In our hyper-
polarized time, sadly, decisive 
leadership has also enraged 
and galvanized the governor’s 
critics. 

And while pandemic response 
has been his top responsibility 
over the last year and a half, 
Newsom has also started work 
on solving some of the state’s 
most intractable problems, using 
the state’s historic budget 
surplus to fund programs to 
help individuals and business 
recover from the pandemic, 
build more affordable housing, 
house the state’s unsheltered 
and prevent and fight wildfires. 

The 46 candidates vying to replace 
Newsom — most of them 
men, most of them Republican, 
and most of them utterly 
unqualified — offer an endless 
litany of grievances that 
are little more than objections 
to his liberal policies — policies, 
we may add, that were 
clear to everyone when 62% 

of voters chose Newsom in the 
2018 election. The whole thing 
would be comical if the stakes 
weren’t so high. 

The critics paint a picture of 
a state teetering on collapse 
that is wildly irresponsible and 
in many cases just flat wrong: 
The streets are overrun with 
criminals thanks to Newsom! 
(Nope.) People and businesses 
are fleeing California in record 
numbers because of his terrible 
policies! (Wrong.) Newsom 
caused the state’s massive wildfires 
because he mismanaged 
the forest! (Ridiculous.) He 
kept changing the rules during 
the pandemic — but he also 
didn’t change them enough! 
(What?) 

The reality is that Newsom took 
office in January 2019 amid literal 
and figurative wildfires: 
Homelessness was rising and 
reaching a tipping point. The 
state’s largest electric utility, 
PG&E, was in bankruptcy because 
of negligence that started 
infernos like the one that wiped 
out the town of Paradise. The 
state’s information technology 
systems were (and still are) 
hopelessly out of date, leading 
to one of the first challenges of 
Newsom’s administration, at 
the Department of Motor Vehicles. 
Climate change was and 
still is accelerating, squeezing 
the state’s power grid during its 
transition to renewable energy 
sources and straining its water 
supply. 

These crises were years in the 
making and — let’s face it — 
Newsom inherited them from 
his Democratic predecessor, 
Jerry Brown. But Newsom had 
the misfortune to take office 
just as they reached the boiling 
point. And then, the pandemic 
hit and forced Newsom 
to pivot into emergency mode 
and set aside the usual business 
of governance to focus on 
addressing the emerging and 
not fully understood threat of 
COVID-19. 

Newsom’s biggest error was a 
momentary lapse of judgment. 
As governor, he issued tough 
public health restrictions intended 
to limit the spread of 
COVID-19, including a limit 
on more than three households 
gathering. But he didn’t always 
follow his own guidance; 
in November he and his wife 
dined unmasked and shoulder 
to shoulder with 10 other people 
in a private semi-enclosed 
outdoor room at the French 
Laundry, a high-end restaurant 
in Napa Valley. It was a 
mistake, for which Newsom 
apologized — but it was in no 
way a fireable offense. 

Unfortunately for the governor, 
and for California, the 
blunder happened at a critical 
juncture for the latest gubernatorial 
recall effort (thefour filed over the previous 
year failed to qualify). Not two 
weeks after the dinner, a judge 

granted the recall’s proponents 
an extra four months to gather 
signatures, reviving it from 
all-but-certain failure. With 
the help of Republicans such 
as former U.S. House Speaker 
Newt Gingrich, who saw an opportunity 
for political disruption 
in the blue state they love 
to hate, the recall effort was 
able to hitch a ride on the inchoate 
frustration, anger and 
grief Californians were feeling 
after months of pandemic restrictions, 
political divisions 
and civil unrest. 

What’s at stake in this election 
is ultimately not Newsom’s 
political career but California’s 
values and our democracy. 
A new Republican governor 
would struggle to get 
laws passed given a hostile 
Democratic supermajority in 
the Legislature, which could 
override a gubernatorial veto. 
But he or she could reshape 
California for decades to come 
through the use of executive 
orders to roll back environmental 
protections, criminal 
justice reform and the social 
safety net. 

Governors also wield power by 
appointing judges and regulators, 
such as those overseeing 
the state’s power utilities and 
coastal commission, and, in the 
case of a vacancy, members of 
Congress. Newsom named successors 
to Kamala Harris, who 
left the Senate to become vice 
president, and Xavier Becerra, 
who resigned as state attorney 
general to become President 
Biden’s Health and Human 
Services secretary. Should Sen. 
Dianne Feinstein, who is 88, 
retire next year, whoever is 
governor would have a chance 
to select her replacement. 

And who might that appointment 
be? House Minority 
Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-
Bakersfield), who asserted that 
Donald Trump was the real 
winner of the 2020 presidential 
election? Rep. Darrell Issa (R-
Bonsall), who used his House 
seat to hound and harass Presidents 
Obama and Biden? 

If times have seemed tough 
over the past year — with our 
lives, our environment and our 
democracy under grave threat, 
with political violence simmering 
just under the surface of 
every heated debate, and families 
and neighbors so polarized 
that they can’t hold a civil 
conversation — remember that 
they can always get worse. 

Gavin Newsom has made his 
share of mistakes. We’re not 
thrilled with the complacency 
that characterizes parts of the 
Democratic power structure in 
California, or with the outsize 
power of public-sector unions. 
There is no doubt that California 
liberalism hasn’t exactly 
solved soaring homelessness, 
persistent economic and social 
inequality, a mediocre education 
system and, most 

pressing of all, a housing crisis 
that threatens the future of the 
Golden State as a place of opportunity 
and growth. 

But we are thrilled by California’s 
values. This state has 
chosen to be a national leader 
on the environment, criminal 
justice reform and the social 
safety net because state leaders 
and voters have chosen to look 
forward, not backward. We 
want a healthier planet, more 
just communities and opportunity 
for people to live and 
love in peace and freedom. 

To be sure, Newsom’s self-inflicted 
wounds have dismayed 
us. We wish, even now, that he 
would make a more forceful, 
proactive case for his record, 
and not simply denounce his 
recall opponents as Trumpian 
extremists (though some of 
them are). 

In tough times, citizens may 
be tempted to throw out the 
incumbent and try their luck 
with someone offering shiny 
new ideas. That rarely works 
out for the better. Don’t gamble 
with California’s future. 
Vote no on the recall and let 
Newsom finish his term. If 
you’re not happy, you’ll have a 
chance in next year’s election 
to choose someone else. 

QUESTION 2 [ON YOUR 
BALLOT] 

The second question on the 
ballot asks voters to choose 
one of 46 people to take over 
should Newsom be recalled. 
For Californians who oppose 
removing Newsom, this answer 
is not so simple. As an editorial 
board, we have struggled over 
our recommendation, because 
we can say with certainty that 
none of the people hoping to 
replace Newsom would be an 
improvement. 

Faced with such terrible choices, 
it’s tempting to skip this 
difficult question altogether 
and to recommend leaving this 
part of the ballot blank, as the 
Democratic Party has urged. 
Why dignify this reckless power 
grab by participating in it in 
any way? 

We have concluded, after 
searching debate and reflection, 
that that is a cowardly 
way out and would hand the 
decision-making power to others 
who do vote — and those 
voters may be uninformed, irrationally 
angry and looking 
for someone to take a far-right 
turn on issues like climate 
change, environmental protection, 
civil rights, policing and 
vaccination. That’s too great a 
gamble. 

We’re left to conclude that 
voters who oppose the recall 
should also vote for a replacement 
— even if they have to 
hold their noses to do so. 

But who? 

It’s hard to find much to recommend 
the front-runners. All 
oppose to some degree the pandemic 
actions taken by Newsom, 
including mask mandates 
and vaccine requirements.
But some are worse than others. 
Case in point is the man 
who is polling highest among 
those who favor recall: the 
conservative radio host Larry 
Elder. Not only does he have 
no experience in elective office, 
Elder is a Trumpian ideologue 
who has called climate change 
a “crock” and said there should 
be no minimum wage. 

Supporting Jenner, the transgender 
reality TV star, former 
Olympian and member of the 
Kardashian clan, might seem 
as great an advance in LGBTQ 
representation as Newsom’s 
2004 decision, when he was 
San Francisco’s mayor, to grant 
marriage licenses to same-sex 
couples. But she is a clueless 
lightweight, who demonstrates 
little knowledge of how the 
state works or the scope of, and 
limitations on, the governor’s 
powers. It wouldn’t do the LGBTQ 
community any favors to 
have her fail spectacularly as 
leader of the state. 

Then there’s Republican John 
Cox, the San Diego businessman 
and self-funded perpetual 
candidate who lost to Newsom 
in the 2018 general election. 
He was not qualified for the 
job then, and the only apparent 
difference in his 2021 campaign 
is the Kodiak bear and 
gigantic ball of plastic trash 
he’s been hauling around the 
state to make a point about … 
well, we’re not exactly sure. 

Angelenos may not know much 
about Doug Ose, a land developer 
and former three-term 
Republican congressman from 
the Sacramento area. His only 
distinction from the pack is 
that he’s straightforward about 
the damage he would do to 
California, namely abandoning 
criminal justice reforms, 
building new prisons and putting 
the interests of the state’s 
agricultural lobby ahead of its 
environment and its residents. 

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (R-
Rocklin) is an impressively 
knowledgeable young policy 
wonk with degrees from Harvard 
and Yale, but also a worrisome 
ideologue. When we 
asked Kiley who won the 2020 
presidential election, he refused 
to say whether Biden 
was legitimately chosen. That’s 
shameful. He reminds us of 
Republican opportunists like 
Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, 
Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri 
and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, 
and Rep. Elise Stefanik of New 
York, who benefited from Ivy 
League educations but have 
veered far right to pander to 
Trump supporters when they 
certainly know better. 

Democrats and left-leaning 
independent voters may be 
inclined to support Kevin 
Paffrath, a 29-year-old social 
media influencer who, with 
his 1.69 million YouTube subscribers, 
is the closest thing to 
a prominent Democrat on the 
ballot. He exudes enthusiasm 
and idealism, and may share 
some basic Democratic values 
with most Californians, but 
he’s not a serious candidate 
any more than Los Angeles 
billboard star Angelyne. Besides, 
some of his proposals — 
rounding up homeless people 
and forcing them into shelters, 
and enacting massive tax cuts 

— make us question whether 
he truly stands for anything 
besides his own fame. 
That leaves us with the least 
terrible of all these bad options: 
former San Diego Mayor 
Kevin Faulconer, a moderate 
Republican. He is perhaps the 
most conventional gubernatorial 
candidate and has the executive 
experience and mature 
temperament that other recall 
candidates lack. 

Faulconer is pro-vaccination. 
He acknowledges Biden’s victory. 
He supports abortion rights 
and strong efforts to mitigate 
climate change. He points to 
his work with a majority-Democratic 
City Council and his 
ability to get elected, twice, in 
a city where only a quarter of 
voters are registered Republicans 
as evidence of his bipartisan 
bona fides. 

Faulconer, 54, stands for the 
kind of traditional Republican 
values that the GOP espoused 
during decades of electoral 
dominance in California. Alas, 
the party that produced Earl 
Warren, Richard M. Nixon, 
Ronald Reagan and other 
leaders who reshaped postwar 
American politics has lost serious 
credibility over the past 
decade as demagogues and extremists 
have taken over more 
of the GOP. 

In a normal general election, 
Faulconer would merit 
scrutiny. But it’s hard to see 
how he could remain politically 
viable in this extremist 
era without tapping into the 
Trump-dominated national 
Republican infrastructure. We 
are also concerned about Faulconer’s 
involvement while San 
Diego mayor in a sketchy real 
estate deal in which the city 
paid more than the assessed 
value for an office building. He 
should publicly answer questions 
about his role in this deal. 

We fervently oppose the recall 
of Gavin Newsom, and we do 
not support Kevin Faulconer 
for governor. But for those who 
care about the stability of California, 
Faulconer is the least 
bad option in a recall field that 
ranges from the merely bad to 
the utterly catastrophic. 

VOTE NO! DON'T WAIT 
MAIL YOUR BALLOT TODAY! 

Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 Office: 626.355.2737 Fax: 626.609.3285 Email: editor@mtnviewsnews.com Website: www.mtnviewsnews.com