The Governor’s Prop 36 Pickle

Republicans, frightened by the possibility (likelihood?) of a Gavin Newsom presidential candidacy in 2028, already are going after him for a variety of California-related issues, including homelessness, affordability and crime. Of that trio, which could hamper both Newsom’s ability to win the Democratic nomination and, if he does, the general election, crime may be the most intractable.

Newsom can argue, correctly, that homelessness is an American problem, not just in California, and that is true. He can reverse the affordability argument and turn it against large corporations who, most Americans will agree, are greedy, who look out only for their CEOs and shareholders, and are happy to gouge us if they feel they can get away with it, which they can. But crime is different. It touches everyone. Everyone is afraid of crime, and no crime shocks the public more than the invasion of retail shops by hoards of ski-masked marauders, scenes of brazen carnage often caught on video and retweeted endlessly.

The passage of Proposition 36, which became effective in December, 2024, was voters’ reaction to what they perceived as inaction on retail theft, mainly by the courts. The new proposition brought tougher penalties for serial retail theft, mandated drug and mental health treatment for certain offenders and in general cracked down on drug dealers. The measure passed by a landslide 68% of the statewide vote, despite Gov. Newsom’s strong and widely reported opposition.

In the Spring of 2025, there were news reports that in Newsom’s proposed new budget, “there [was] no funding allocated for Proposition 36.” Conservative Republicans, as well as some law enforcement unions, immediately jumped on the Governor and accused him of ignoring the will of the voters. Newsom explained his opposition to Prop 36 many times. The issue had clearly become irksome to him; he felt misunderstood. The situation was complicated, he argued, and besides, he touted his many significant actions against crime, including sending the California Highway Patrol to cities like Oakland.

But the crime issue remains a tough one for Newsom. He knows that these retail thefts are infamous across America, even in places where they don’t occur. He senses his vulnerability. Newsom has an Irish temper that can explode when he feels wrongly accused of something, as he does with the Prop 36/crime situation. His policy wonkiness, which works in his behalf when it comes to crafting legislation, can be a debit if he has to explain the complexities of an issue. As the old saying, attributed to Ronald Reagan, goes, “Once you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

I don’t think the crime issue has completely gotten away from Newsom. He’s still positioned to defend himself, even as crime rates in California drop, as they are everywhere across the country. But Newsom will have to recraft his message in a more understandable and compelling way that makes sense to people. He’ll have to control that temper of his, which can blind him to the way voters are really feeling on sensitive issues. I say these things as a Newsom supporter who believes he can make a good, and perhaps great President.

Steve Heimoff

This blog ain’t going anywhere!

Judging from the many messages I got after yesterday’s post, I should have made it crystal clear that I will continue to write this blog. Nothing will change. I’ll write it as long as God gives me the strength to write.

I’m humiliated, to tell the truth. For someone who considers himself a pretty good writer, I really blew it. Repeat: The blog is not going away. It will be there in the future, just as it has been in the past. I’m so sorry to have given you the impression I’m ending it—even though it was inadvertent.

My issue is simply that the Facebook people have taken their Coalition page in a different direction than I have, a direction I don’t like. So last word: This blog ain’t going anywhere!

And now, on to a related issue: how Carroll Fife once again is trying to seize control of the Oakland Police Department and defund it.

Nearly a year ago, in May, 2025, Fife first introduced her plan to “civilianize” OPD to the City Council. A hearing was to be held, followed by a vote, but Fife withdrew the agenda item and it was rescheduled for Jan. 13, 2026. That is today.

Fife never explained why she pulled the item, but I think we’re justified in conjecturing that she knew it wouldn’t come close to passing. Attitudes among the public, and a majority of City Council members, were fast switching from anti-police to pro-police. Fife, who does her best (i.e. most insidious work) in the dark, decided to work secretly, behind the scenes, to convince a majority of her Council colleagues to support “civilianizing.”

Today, she apparently feels that her work has paid off; the vote is scheduled to happen this afternoon. But what precisely does “civilianizing OPD” mean? From the Council’s agenda for today:

FROM CM FIFE

Adopt A Resolution Directing The City Administrator To Implement Approved Processes For Civilianizing Certain Sworn Positions Within The Oakland Police Department (OPD) To Improve Public Safety Services To Our Communities And Create Millions In Cost Savings By Reducing Overtime Hours

Let’s be clear: This is not about saving money, as Fife claims. The unions she’s working with, who love her bill, couldn’t care less about a balanced budget. What this is about is the progressive, anti-police camel getting its nose inside OPD’s tent. Their plan is nothing less than to take over as many of OPD’s functions as they can, and to make sure the “civilians” who take the jobs are their hand-picked, anti-cop, defund-the-police goons that are approved by Fife, the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA, which is among the most anti-cop cults in town), and their radical friends.

These people will never stop trying to undermine public safety until we stop them!

Steve Heimoff