Speaker 1: And we continue at two o five in the afternoon
Speaker 1: on The John Phillips Show, broadcasting live from San Francisco.
Speaker 1: Mister Randy Wiggs in Culver City.
Speaker 2: Still hurts John. We have breaking news coming out of CNN.
Speaker 2: The former staffer who accused Eric Swalwell of raping her
Speaker 2: is cooperating with the Manhattan DA's investigation.
Speaker 1: He could end up sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein.
Speaker 1: Oh boy, I think he's at Rikers Island, isn't he.
Speaker 2: I think so.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that doesn't sound like fun.
Speaker 2: Do you think if this thing goes to trial there's
Speaker 2: going to be artists renderings of his genitals? Well, if
Speaker 2: there is, I would imagine that some of our listeners
Speaker 2: are going to recreate it and then email it to us.
Speaker 2: I was just thinking about that with that Weinstein one
Speaker 2: was great.
Speaker 1: Well read it from Sunland and she must have come
Speaker 1: up with seven or eight drawings, and some of them,
Speaker 1: some of them I considered hanging in my house. Now.
Speaker 1: They were extremely explicit for all the wrong reasons. But
Speaker 1: art is art, Randy, and sometimes you don't argue with art.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred two two two five two two two is
Speaker 1: a telephone number one eight hundred two two two five
Speaker 1: two two two. It is our pleasure to welcome our
Speaker 1: next guest to the program. He is a Republican political
Speaker 1: strategist too. You can follow on exit the Thomas Guide,
Speaker 1: John Thomas Welcome.
Speaker 3: Hey John, great to be with you.
Speaker 1: Well, if we were chatting three weeks ago, we would
Speaker 1: be talking about Eric Swalwell being the front runner for
Speaker 1: governor in California. But oh boy, have the tides turned now.
Speaker 1: According to the buzz, Javier Bessera is the new it
Speaker 1: girl and is the new candidate that the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: establishment is considering getting behind to try to save the
Speaker 1: party from Katie Porter and Tom Steyer.
Speaker 3: Your thoughts on that, well, it's it's interesting to watch
Speaker 3: this that Swalwell, really, in any.
Speaker 4: Other competitive race.
Speaker 3: Should never have been in such a strong position. But
Speaker 3: I think the rally behind Swalwell originally John was more
Speaker 3: of a reflection of establishment Democrats like Adam Schiff and
Speaker 3: others loathing Katie Porter and distrusting Tom Steyer, and Swalwell
Speaker 3: was the only one left around. And then, of course
Speaker 3: I think all the insiders knew that he was a creep.
Speaker 3: I just don't think they recognized he was a rapie creep,
Speaker 3: and so that became politically problematic for them. And here
Speaker 3: and here we are. But what what an interesting rise
Speaker 3: that Bessarah is now in a position of strengths because
Speaker 3: let's not forget John he was nowhere just a couple
Speaker 3: of weeks ago, and he's done nothing to justify the rise.
Speaker 3: So I remain slightly skeptical that he's going to be
Speaker 3: the guy because let's not forget Tom. Syers dropped one
Speaker 3: hundred and thirty million so far into this race, and
Speaker 3: Besarah's at a couple of million. Seems like it's going
Speaker 3: to be a little harder to keep that stickiness that
Speaker 3: that Sarah seems having in the polls through election day.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Tom Steier because one of the things
Speaker 1: that you do is part of your job as a strategist,
Speaker 1: is part of getting someone elected to an office that
Speaker 1: they're running for, is you have to package them in
Speaker 1: a way to voters that makes them attractive. And one
Speaker 1: of the things that the Stier campaign has done when
Speaker 1: you look at his ads is they portray him as
Speaker 1: this guy who is is swearing and cursing and bede
Speaker 1: pressing and superhero like and he's going to take on
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, and he's going to put Ice in prison,
Speaker 1: and he's going to march into Sacramento like a bull
Speaker 1: in a china shop and no one's going to stop him.
Speaker 1: And then you see him on stage at the debate,
Speaker 1: and he looks like an old man wearing tennis shoes
Speaker 1: in an old folks home. So he doesn't trip and
Speaker 1: break a hip, and he's kind of confused at times,
Speaker 1: mixing things up, and he certainly looks like a deer
Speaker 1: in the cotton the headlights at times when he's asked
Speaker 1: something he's not being expecting to be asked. It doesn't
Speaker 1: match with the packaging of the candidate. When you actually
Speaker 1: see him perform in a debate, he's quiet. He is
Speaker 1: someone who doesn't seem totally sure of himself. He is
Speaker 1: certainly not the ass kicker that they portray in the ads.
Speaker 3: That's problematic, and you're right, John, I mean, just in
Speaker 3: advertising in general, that I learned way back in my
Speaker 3: collegiate days when I was studying advertising, that a brand
Speaker 3: is a promise of consistency, and that means a consistent
Speaker 3: message and a consistent image across channels, and so that
Speaker 3: disconnect between the TV ads that they've framed stier as
Speaker 3: and the debate performances, and to the degree that Sire's
Speaker 3: on the trail, you know, the experience that real voters
Speaker 3: are having with him, there is a disconnect. But I
Speaker 3: know why that they frame Sire is this tough guy,
Speaker 3: and it's because it's the same reason Gavin Newsom is
Speaker 3: portraying himself as a tough guy. Because the number one
Speaker 3: thing that Democrats say they want right now is a fighter,
Speaker 3: a fighter against Donald Trump, and so they're trying to
Speaker 3: fit Stire into that bold and on TV it's okay,
Speaker 3: but it's not authentically true. And I think that's why
Speaker 3: you're seeing Styre kind of hovering in the teens and
Speaker 3: not running away with this race, despite the fact that
Speaker 3: he's outspent everybody tenfold.
Speaker 1: Katie Porter seemed very shaky at the debate when she
Speaker 1: was asked about how she treated that staffer when she
Speaker 1: told the staffer to get out of a reference shod.
Speaker 1: She certainly had it in for Julie Watts of CBS News.
Speaker 1: He's going to be moderating the next debate in Claremont
Speaker 1: next week, who was the one that she didn't like
Speaker 1: the line of questioning, and she threatened to get up
Speaker 1: and walk off the set and end the interview right there.
Speaker 1: And she had a prepackaged answer clearly where she blamed
Speaker 1: Donald Trump as if Donald Trump is responsible for her
Speaker 1: having a short fuse. But whatever, that's how she decided
Speaker 1: to answer the question. There are rumors that are swirling,
Speaker 1: rumors that come from the via Goosa camp from Michael Trehillo,
Speaker 1: who's a strategist to has worked with Via Ragosa for years,
Speaker 1: that there are more tapes involving Katie Porter being abusive
Speaker 1: that are going to be released before the election. If
Speaker 1: you're Katie Porter, is that catastrophic for you? Or do
Speaker 1: you think people understanding that you're an abusive person is
Speaker 1: already baked into the cake and it's not going to
Speaker 1: move the needle much one way or the other.
Speaker 3: Well, I think the shakiness is probably a side effect
Speaker 3: of all the ozembic that she's chewing during these debates,
Speaker 3: because there's something else with that transformation. But aside from that,
Speaker 3: it is her achilles heel. And it's kind of like
Speaker 3: on the flip side of Tom Steyer in the sense
Speaker 3: of everybody knows Katie Porter does have a decent amount
Speaker 3: of name id and the ret and their suspicion and
Speaker 3: their fear about Katie Porter is that she's not like us.
Speaker 3: She's not a nice person, she doesn't care about everyday Californians,
Speaker 3: And every time something authentically pops up her screaming at
Speaker 3: a staffer, it undermines her entire brand persona and it
Speaker 3: causes the ads not to land. So one more video drop,
Speaker 3: I mean, that's about it. Although I think it's tough
Speaker 3: for Katie because she's run before and she's fairly well known.
Speaker 3: I think her ceiling for this race is pretty much
Speaker 3: what it's been in the other Democrats and the other
Speaker 3: races she's run statewide, which is probably what fifteen to
Speaker 3: seventeen percent, And so I just think she's probably not
Speaker 3: going to get there anyway. John. But if another video
Speaker 3: comes out that confirms to voter suspicions about what they
Speaker 3: think to be true, which is she's not a nice person,
Speaker 3: she doesn't care about us, that's it for Katie Porter.
Speaker 1: If you took a look at the focus groups or
Speaker 1: the snappolls, whatever you want to call them, after the debate,
Speaker 1: they all said pretty much the same thing, which is
Speaker 1: that Matt mahon performed the best. To my eye, Matt
Speaker 1: Mayheon had a very good night. What I can't figure
Speaker 1: out is where the votes are for Matt Mayheon. It
Speaker 1: seems to me like he's sticking his pull in a
Speaker 1: pond that doesn't have any fish in it. He's talking
Speaker 1: to Democrats who believe that the state of California is
Speaker 1: run very poorly, and that Gavin Newsom has failed the
Speaker 1: state in terms of homelessness and crime and inefficiency and waste,
Speaker 1: fraud and abuse and fill in the blank. I know
Speaker 1: a lot of Republicans who that argument resonates with. But
Speaker 1: Republicans are going to vote for one of the Republican candidates.
Speaker 1: I don't know Republican is going to vote for one
Speaker 1: of the Democrats. I'm sure they exist, I don't know them.
Speaker 1: I don't know any Democrats who feel that way. The
Speaker 1: Democrats I know are all ginded up right now about
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. That's what they care about. Some of them
Speaker 1: are ginned up about Ice, but mostly a hatred for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. And I just don't see a huge population
Speaker 1: of people out there in the Democratic Party who are
Speaker 1: furious at how the state is run and they want
Speaker 1: someone to be better than Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 3: In that regard, your analysis I think is completely correct.
Speaker 3: He's kind of caught in the middle of no man's
Speaker 3: land here. The partisans are going to take their corners
Speaker 3: and there's not a lot of room left for Matt.
Speaker 3: And let's not forget you know, in politics generally, debates
Speaker 3: you don't win elections, and debates you can only lose them.
Speaker 3: So they're really more risk mitigation exercises than opportunities to
Speaker 3: make a name for yourself. And so while Matt I
Speaker 3: think did do a good job at the debate, he
Speaker 3: needs more than a debate to catapult him into relevancy.
Speaker 3: And again, his messaging is exactly what you said, and
Speaker 3: it just doesn't fit with the anger of the average Democrat,
Speaker 3: which really is wrapped around Donald Trump. That's why, even
Speaker 3: though what you said about Sire is true, he's kind
Speaker 3: of a milktost meek guy. It's the reason his ad
Speaker 3: team is making him try to put him as a
Speaker 3: as an anti Trump crusader. It's why Eric Swollwell did
Speaker 3: as well as he did for so long, because he
Speaker 3: was authentically thought to be anti Trump and in the
Speaker 3: fight and if you don't check that box, and I
Speaker 3: think the Sarah is a wobbler at best at checking
Speaker 3: that box.
Speaker 4: But if you don't.
Speaker 3: Moderately at least check that box, you're not going to
Speaker 3: generate the intensity that you need to pop into high high,
Speaker 3: you know, into double digits to win this race. And
Speaker 3: so I just I think Matt Mayhon is kind of
Speaker 3: a tech bro billionaire's dream that's never going to see reality.
Speaker 1: If the Democratic Party walks away from this week's debate
Speaker 1: with the assessment that Bisarah just doesn't have it, that
Speaker 1: he's not going to be the guy that's going to
Speaker 1: take him to the Promised Land, do they give Anti,
Speaker 1: Toni olvir Rigosa and Tony Thurman a second look. Who
Speaker 1: are the remaining Democrats and single digits who were not
Speaker 1: invited to that debate? Or do they just accept the
Speaker 1: inevitability of either Katie Porter or Tom Steyer or Matt Mayhean.
Speaker 3: I think they accept the inevitability. I mean, you can't
Speaker 3: breathe life into a campaign that's sitting at one percent
Speaker 3: or two percent. It's just there's almost no amount of
Speaker 3: sheer will that'll get that done. So I think the
Speaker 3: real tell of the establishment is that they if they
Speaker 3: start kind of cozying up to a Tom Styer, I
Speaker 3: think that that starts to become like an I'm sorry coalition.
Speaker 3: Try to make sure that they're not heads, aren't on
Speaker 3: the chopping block if Tom's the guy. But I just
Speaker 3: struggle to see a path if you're sitting at one
Speaker 3: or two percent. I mean, Antonio is really such a
Speaker 3: fascinating character, because you know, he's had a pretty distinguished
Speaker 3: elected career, and yet no one cares about him in
Speaker 3: this race for governor.
Speaker 1: Let's move on to the Republicans, because I thought that
Speaker 1: Chad Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside County, was magnificent when
Speaker 1: the subject was public safety, when the subject was law
Speaker 1: enforcement oriented, he knew more than anyone else on that stage,
Speaker 1: and he should He's worked in that industry his entire life.
Speaker 1: But he had a real knowledge, he had a real passion,
Speaker 1: and I thought that that came through he was shakier
Speaker 1: on other subjects. He certainly is conservative, he certainly knows
Speaker 1: how he sees the world, but in terms of the details,
Speaker 1: you could tell he was more of a big picture
Speaker 1: guy on issues that don't involve law enforcement. Steve Hilton
Speaker 1: was more of a policy wonk than the other candidates.
Speaker 1: He certainly had more details in his answers to the
Speaker 1: questions that were asked of him. But if you were
Speaker 1: to ask me which one of them did better than
Speaker 1: the other, I would say they pretty much battled it
Speaker 1: out to a draw, which, if you're the California Republican Party,
Speaker 1: is exactly what you want because you want your voters
Speaker 1: to split their vote fifty to fifty between the two.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that is right. I think from an electoral standpoint,
Speaker 3: I thought Steve Hilton was a little bit more on
Speaker 3: a performative level, a little bit better. You know, he
Speaker 3: had a little bit more. You can see he has
Speaker 3: more experience and TV time, But there certainly was no standout,
Speaker 3: which you're right, it will the race will kind of
Speaker 3: continue to be split. I think that the biggest thing
Speaker 3: that might not split the race is Trump's endorsing Hilton.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's that's a pretty big hand on the
Speaker 3: lever to low information Republican voters. I guess the question is,
Speaker 3: you know, can stee can Steve does he have the
Speaker 3: resources to message Republicans loudly enough to let them know
Speaker 3: If he doesn't, it might still remain kind of a
Speaker 3: perfect storm as we see this kind of milk till
Speaker 3: crew that there's just no standout at this point.
Speaker 1: It seems like the Democrats I know are scared to
Speaker 1: death that the Republicans will lock the Democratic Party off
Speaker 1: the November ballot, and that that is something that they
Speaker 1: are legitimately concerned about, not just the party itself, the
Speaker 1: California Democratic Party and its chairman Rusty Higgs, but Democratic
Speaker 1: voters seem to legitimately be terrified of that result. When
Speaker 1: I talked to Republicans, it seems like the Republicans I
Speaker 1: know think that's a pipe dream that's never going to happen.
Speaker 1: Stop talking that way. We're never going to get a
Speaker 1: Republican governor in California in our lifetime. We're certainly never
Speaker 1: going to get two on the ballot in November. Just
Speaker 1: accept the inevitability that it's going to be a Republican
Speaker 1: versus a Democrat. It's so strange to me that the
Speaker 1: Republicans I talk to are so pessimistic of that happening,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats, who are also pessimistic and think it's
Speaker 1: absolutely going to happen. Less they step in and whack
Speaker 1: another one of their own candidates.
Speaker 3: It is a really interesting dynamic. I think it might
Speaker 3: speak to more like the core traits between the parties.
Speaker 3: Democrats seem to kind of get in line, you know,
Speaker 3: for the good of the party a little bit faster
Speaker 3: than Republicans kind of march to their own dramas. It
Speaker 3: reminds me, John of how all the Democrats overnight coalesced
Speaker 3: around Kamala Harris and Joe Biden need to you know,
Speaker 3: stepping down, and yet there was not a peep of that,
Speaker 3: you know, until after the debate performance, and they kind
Speaker 3: of got in line, whereas Republicans kind of remain a
Speaker 3: little bit more skeptical and they're going to do what
Speaker 3: they want to do. And look, if you're a Republican
Speaker 3: in the state of California, John, you know, you have
Speaker 3: you have PTSD from not winning any statewide elections for
Speaker 3: so many years. It's just kind of like labor at
Speaker 3: this point. But I wish Republicans would actually sit there
Speaker 3: and figure out how do we electioneer this thing, because
Speaker 3: although not terribly likely, it is possible that two Republicans
Speaker 3: go to the next round, and that is the only
Speaker 3: pathway to a Republican taking that office. If it is
Speaker 3: an R and a D go on in the next round,
Speaker 3: there is just no way that did a Republican survive.
Speaker 3: So if Republicans really wanted it, I'm sure. And if
Speaker 3: you ask a Republican would you take a Bianco or
Speaker 3: would you take a Hilton over any Democrat? Of course
Speaker 3: they would say yes. So I wish the State Republican
Speaker 3: Party did a better job messaging that, but that they
Speaker 3: really haven't at this point.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the dog that didn't bark. Had Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris jumped into this race, I do not believe this
Speaker 1: would be a competitive race that anyone was talking about
Speaker 1: right now. Yet she took forever to decide that she
Speaker 1: wasn't going to run, and that's in part why we
Speaker 1: have the mess that we have on our hands today.
Speaker 3: I totally agree with that. Well, Kamala would have won
Speaker 3: this in a walk. I mean, it wouldn't even been close.
Speaker 3: Her name, her name, I d she would have put
Speaker 3: together the endorsements, she checks the kind of identity politics box,
Speaker 3: and of course she's a proven strong fundraiser, so she
Speaker 3: would have sucked all the auction out of the room
Speaker 3: as it relates to money, and it would have just
Speaker 3: been a coronation. So she completely screwed the Democratic Party
Speaker 3: by selfishly waiting, and quite frankly, John, she screwed herself
Speaker 3: because the governor's race, I believe was their only pathway
Speaker 3: to electoral politics again. She will never be president, she
Speaker 3: will never be appointed as a vice president again.
Speaker 4: So if she.
Speaker 3: Wanted back in the game, why not take you know,
Speaker 3: the brass ring, which is the governor of California. And
Speaker 3: it just made no sense. The only reason I could
Speaker 3: figure she didn't want it is because she's just too
Speaker 3: dumb to realize she can't hand or maybe she's too
Speaker 3: wise to recognize that that's a real job and she's
Speaker 3: not ready for that responsibility. Ah, It's it's befuddling to me.
Speaker 3: But it would have been hers in a walk had
Speaker 3: she wanted it.
Speaker 1: John Thomas, Republican political strategist. You can follow him on
Speaker 1: x at the Thomas Guide. John Thomas, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for stopping by, Have a wonderful weekend.
Speaker 3: Thanks again.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred two two two five two two two is
Speaker 1: the telephone number one eight hundred two two two five
Speaker 1: two two two If you'd like to email the show,
Speaker 1: you can do so at Johnny don't like show at
Speaker 1: gmail dot com. That's Johnny. Don't like show at gmail
Speaker 1: dot com. And Randy, if you want to listen to
Speaker 1: us all weekend long, that's easy to do too.
Speaker 2: You can download all the podcasts of this show, like
Speaker 2: the twelve o'clock hour we talked about. Pamela Price is
Speaker 2: Eric Swawell hotline. I'm really proud of the description. In
Speaker 2: her latest desperate attempt to stay relevant, recalled DA, Pamela
Speaker 2: Price wants to exploit sexual abuse survivors to get attention
Speaker 2: for her ill fated bid to get her job back.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred two two two five two two two is
Speaker 1: telephone number one. Eight hundred two two two five two
Speaker 1: two two. If you'd like to email the show, you
Speaker 1: can do so at Johnny don't like show at gmail
Speaker 1: dot com. That's Johnny. Don't like show at gmail dot com.
Speaker 1: Let's go to Joe and Zanta Monica.
Speaker 5: Joe, Hello, Hey, Thanks, I want to thank you and
Speaker 5: Randy and Susan Shelley and John Capaul and I get
Speaker 5: kind of emotional about this that I'm so happy that
Speaker 5: that petition to help save Proposition thirteen or help to
Speaker 5: strengthen it and keep it vital as it is, is
Speaker 5: going to be on the ballot.
Speaker 4: And I just want to thank you for that. The
Speaker 4: only I think I went around trying to get petitions
Speaker 4: to take for Proposition nine team to remove that the
Speaker 4: property tax problem where if your parent died, the property
Speaker 4: tax would be based on the time when your parent
Speaker 4: died if you were to inherit that instead of the
Speaker 4: way Proposition thirteen had it, where it would just continue
Speaker 4: to go on. When I did that petition, people would
Speaker 4: look at me and they couldn't believe. They the glassy eye.
Speaker 4: They couldn't believe that there was such a law that
Speaker 4: would do that. And I just know that I'm glad
Speaker 4: it's on the ballot, but there are people out there
Speaker 4: that don't even know what Proposition thirteen is, and we
Speaker 4: just need to continue to pound it out there and
Speaker 4: just make people aware of the ballot initiative so it passes.
Speaker 4: So thanks for listening, and thanks for all you do.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you so much for the call. And Randy,
Speaker 1: you and I were out in Long Beach, we were
Speaker 1: in Sherman Oaks. We went all over collecting signatures for
Speaker 1: this initiative to protect Prop thirteen, and it is exciting
Speaker 1: to know that we have an opportunity to do that
Speaker 1: on the ballot November.
Speaker 2: It qualified for the ballot, so you're going to be
Speaker 2: able to vote on it. And in case you need
Speaker 2: a refresher on what this does, it makes it so
Speaker 2: there's no longer such thing as a citizen initiative tax
Speaker 2: increase that you only need fifty one percent support to pass.
Speaker 2: The whole thing is Prop thirteen made it. If you
Speaker 2: increase any taxes, you need two thirds approval from the voters.
Speaker 2: You need real buy in, and they came up with
Speaker 2: this loophole through the courts called well if the government
Speaker 2: doesn't put it on the ballot, but a union does,
Speaker 2: it cuts a different threshold. This would restore that, but
Speaker 2: it would also repeal and refund any real estate transfer
Speaker 2: taxes like Measure ULA, the initiative passed in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two that was billed as the Mansion Tax that turned
Speaker 2: out to also give a five percent tax on all
Speaker 2: multifamily dwellings, which has actually made it almost impossible to
Speaker 2: build apartment buildings in the city of Los Angeles. If
Speaker 2: that passes, not only does ula get immediately repealed, But
Speaker 2: the City of LA will owe people millions and millions
Speaker 2: of dollars that they will have to refund and it's
Speaker 2: not going to look good for them at all. That's
Speaker 2: a reason to vote yes right there.
Speaker 1: In addition to having the opportunity to protect Proposition thirteen
Speaker 1: will also be asked to vote on initiatives that involve
Speaker 1: Uber and ride share companies.
Speaker 2: That initiative is something that you're going to see a
Speaker 2: couple of right share initiatives, because there's one to regulate
Speaker 2: Uber and there's one that Uber's putting on the ballot
Speaker 2: to confuse people. Now, what does the initiative to regulate
Speaker 2: Uber make it so Uber can be held accountable if
Speaker 2: somebody gets sexual assaulted by one of their drivers? Uber says,
Speaker 2: what are you talking about? We take that totally seriously.
Speaker 2: But we know from reporting from CBSLA and Christine Lazar
Speaker 2: that a lot of times Uber is allowing people to
Speaker 2: drive for their platform with stolen IDs, so you don't
Speaker 2: know what their criminal record or driving record looks like.
Speaker 1: For more on these Uber initiatives, it'll be appearing on
Speaker 1: a ballot near you. Let's go ahead and listen to
Speaker 1: ABC ten.
Speaker 6: Now to state matters. Uber is back at the spotlight,
Speaker 6: pushing a new ballot measure ahead of the twenty twenty
Speaker 6: six midterms. It's facing a strong pushback with a rival
Speaker 6: measure now likely headed to voters. ABC ten's Jenny Huff
Speaker 6: breaking it down for us this afternoon.
Speaker 7: Well, Monica, there were three countermeasures at first, all aimed
Speaker 7: at Uber's plan to cap attorney fees and auto accident cases.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, Uber wants to go after your personal injury attorneys.
Speaker 7: Good luck with that, buddy, Well Monica, there were three
Speaker 7: countermeasures at first, all aimed at Uber's plan to cap
Speaker 7: attorney fees and auto accident cases. Now it's down to
Speaker 7: one one that is focused on protecting sexual assault victims.
Speaker 8: California voters stand ready and willing to protect survivors of
Speaker 8: sexual assault.
Speaker 9: Implementing the strongest background checks, real safety measures, and real
Speaker 9: transparency when harm happens on the app.
Speaker 2: Right right now, it is so lax that Eric Swalwell
Speaker 2: could go on Facebook marketplace, get a stolen solid security number,
Speaker 2: ride for Uber, and do you know what inside that Uber?
Speaker 1: You know what I still think if I were to
Speaker 1: call an Uber and I saw Eric Swalwell behind the wheel.
Speaker 1: That would be preferential to having Grampy Joe behind the wheel.
Speaker 2: I picked the Weimo over all of them.
Speaker 7: Supporters rallied at the Capitol Thursday for a ballot measure
Speaker 7: that would require Uber to follow the same safety standards
Speaker 7: as taxis, buses, and trains and hold the company more
Speaker 7: accountable and sexual assault cases they're relying.
Speaker 2: There are hundreds of people this year that got ten
Speaker 2: ninety nine's in the mail because someone used their social
Speaker 2: Security number to drive for their platform, and Uber says, oh,
Speaker 2: this isn't a problem. Identity theft is one of these
Speaker 2: crimes that we don't treat severely enough. If you steal
Speaker 2: someone's identity, you can ruin their life and the government
Speaker 2: should come down on you like a ton of bricks. Well,
Speaker 2: and you have to think about why does someone need
Speaker 2: to steal someone's ID to drive for Uber. It means
Speaker 2: that something is in their background where they are not
Speaker 2: qualified to be driving for that platform. And Uber's looking
Speaker 2: the other way.
Speaker 9: Lying on an app, a business, a system that has
Speaker 9: promised them safety.
Speaker 1: Something feels off.
Speaker 2: And by the way, another thing that happens with this
Speaker 2: is if you're a driver and you're not good and
Speaker 2: you get less than a five star review, you just
Speaker 2: steal someone else's identity and start a new profile.
Speaker 9: Great, the driver maybe doesn't match the photo, the route changes.
Speaker 7: The group Alliance against Corporate Abuse is behind the measure,
Speaker 7: which is a direct counter effort to an initiative backed
Speaker 7: by writes your company, Uber and the group a more
Speaker 7: affordable California. A spokesperson for the opposition.
Speaker 2: Set, that's right. Uber can't afford to pay their drivers,
Speaker 2: and that's why you have to tip twenty five percent
Speaker 2: on every ride. But they raised enough money to put
Speaker 2: a ballot measure on the ballot to go after attorneys.
Speaker 1: It's so funny because these big companies, they always claim
Speaker 1: to be broke, but boy do they have money when
Speaker 1: they feel like they need it. Oh yeah, they had
Speaker 1: plenty of money when and they put forth the measure
Speaker 1: on the ballot that exempted Uber and Lyft from AB.
Speaker 2: Five A spokesperson for the offer, and they've had plenty
Speaker 2: of money to invest in the technology that led to
Speaker 2: autonomous driving, which will eventually put Lift and Uber out
Speaker 2: of business.
Speaker 7: A spokesperson for the opposition says, in part quote, this
Speaker 7: ballot measure is a cynical ploy by billboard lawyers to
Speaker 7: defeat a separate Uber backed ballot measure that would ban
Speaker 7: predatory schemes targeting auto accident victims.
Speaker 8: Attorneys made more than a billion while local taxpayers got screwed.
Speaker 2: Every eight minutes, Uber tries to silence victims. Every eight minutes,
Speaker 2: somebody gets sexually assaulted in an Uber.
Speaker 1: It happens that often.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a worldwide platform, but apparently it's a
Speaker 2: bigger problem than Uber wants to admit that it is.
Speaker 2: Control yourselves. People also just have to point this out.
Speaker 2: I don't know why, but the stolen identity thing is
Speaker 2: a mostly Uber thing, not a lift thing. Here what
Speaker 2: that is? The pink mustache protects you.
Speaker 1: I know you prefer way Mos to both of those,
Speaker 1: but do you have a preference between Uber and Lyft.
Speaker 2: I prefer Lyft because I get five X points on
Speaker 2: my Chase card.
Speaker 1: I like Lyft because I get Hilton Honors points.
Speaker 2: Oh, I didn't know that I got to tie my
Speaker 2: Hilton account to it. I have. I think I get
Speaker 2: Alaska points whenever I use Lyft as well. There's always
Speaker 2: all these kinds of programs. John and I are addicted
Speaker 2: to points.
Speaker 7: Those are adds from the two competing sides. Uber is
Speaker 7: pushing the Preventing Accident Victims from self dealing Attorneys Act.
Speaker 7: Supporters say their goal of capping attorney fees at twenty
Speaker 7: five percent would help accident victims and reduce costs for consumers.
Speaker 2: But we have to vote on these strangest things at
Speaker 2: the ballot.
Speaker 1: I have a feeling that the November ballot is going
Speaker 1: to be really long because in the old days we
Speaker 1: used to be able to vote on initiatives in the
Speaker 1: primary too, and you'd split them up. Now you don't
Speaker 1: split them up. Now all of them are going to
Speaker 1: end up on the November ballot. There's going to be
Speaker 1: a lot.
Speaker 7: But Alliance Against Corporate Abuse argues UBER, would make it
Speaker 7: harder for occidentive victims to sue the company.
Speaker 9: Because Uber's interest is in keeping as many drivers on
Speaker 9: the road at possible at all times, no matter how
Speaker 9: unsafe they are, because it maximizes profits.
Speaker 8: They've had a huge overreach, and what we're trying to
Speaker 8: do is something that's actually quite targeted. We're actually going
Speaker 8: after a problem they know they have, which the New
Speaker 8: York Times uncovered, which is every eight minutes. When you
Speaker 8: have a sexual assault and you're getting that reported to you,
Speaker 8: you need to do something about it.
Speaker 2: We asked you think it would be in their best
Speaker 2: interest to vet their drivers, but they don't want to
Speaker 2: do that.
Speaker 1: Have you ever had any problems with any Uber or
Speaker 1: Lyft drivers before.
Speaker 2: Outside of a stench, I've been pretty lucky. You know
Speaker 2: how creepy this is. By the way, we just talked
Speaker 2: about Lift and I get a notification on my phone, Hey,
Speaker 2: LIFT can help you get to the airport.
Speaker 1: I think this is primarily a problem for women. I
Speaker 1: think when women are by themselves in the back of
Speaker 1: a car, I think they're the ones that get harassed.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, and that is why. And this is interesting
Speaker 2: Lift in California, and I think Uber as well. No,
Speaker 2: I think it was Uber. They started a new option
Speaker 2: on the platform that if you are a female passenger,
Speaker 2: you can request a female driver, and they're getting sued
Speaker 2: by male drivers that think that's not fair.
Speaker 7: We asked Uber about the safety aspect. A spokesperson diructed
Speaker 7: us to their website, which breaks down their background check process.
Speaker 2: You know, who can't sexually assault you? The robot not yet, at.
Speaker 7: Least identity verification, driving record, and criminal history. Uber also
Speaker 7: says applicants can be rejected for various offenses, including sexual assault,
Speaker 7: sex crimes involving murder, and kidnappy.
Speaker 2: Oh good, they don't allow murderers to drive for the platform.
Speaker 1: Just wait till Scott Wiener has his say.
Speaker 7: And voters will get to weigh in on both measures
Speaker 7: should they qualify to be on the November twenty twenty
Speaker 7: six ballot. And this all comes as Uber was just
Speaker 7: ordered by a federal jury in North Carolina to pay
Speaker 7: a woman who says she was sexually assaulted during a ride,
Speaker 7: and February another jury in Arizona reached a similar verdict.
Speaker 7: The company faces that.
Speaker 2: Gee, I wonder why Uber wants to put something on
Speaker 2: the ballot that will make it harder for people to
Speaker 2: sue them. Maybe it's because people are getting assaulted in
Speaker 2: their cars and they are liable.
Speaker 7: The company faces thousands of similar claims.
Speaker 6: Walt Monica All right, thanks, Jenny.
Speaker 2: I also got to point this out. I remember a
Speaker 2: few months ago when the state of California changed how
Speaker 2: much insurance the ride share companies have to have for
Speaker 2: their and Uber said, and Liff said, and we're going
Speaker 2: to pass on those savings to you. No they didn't.
Speaker 1: Well, that's always the promise, but there's never a follow through.
Speaker 2: Rideshare has gotten so expensive I actually consider just not
Speaker 2: drinking when I go out.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred two two two five two two two is
Speaker 1: telephone number one eight hundred two two two five two
Speaker 1: two two. If you'd like to email the show, you
Speaker 1: can do so at Johnny don't like show at gmail
Speaker 1: dot com. That's Johnny. Don't like show at gmail dot com. Well, Randy,
Speaker 1: you can file this in the category of we never
Speaker 1: learned from our mistakes.
Speaker 2: Once again, the Santa Ynez Reservoir in the Pacific Palisades
Speaker 2: is being drained and it might not be filled again
Speaker 2: until December for more.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess there's nothing left to burn down, so
Speaker 1: why not. Here is CBSLA or Developing News today involving
Speaker 1: the controversial Pacific Palisades reservoir that was empty during the
Speaker 1: Palisades fight.
Speaker 2: And Mi groadge is at the desk now that they've
Speaker 2: drained that reservoir again.
Speaker 10: Yeah, they did, Susie and GEO. And this is all
Speaker 10: because of work the DWP says needs to be done.
Speaker 10: But remember This reservoir was highly controversial during the Palisades
Speaker 10: Fire because it sat empty as fire hydrants ran dry.
Speaker 10: This is the video from SKYCW today that you can
Speaker 10: see the reservoir is in fact empty.
Speaker 1: That work being done now.
Speaker 10: The reservoir had been empty for many, many years before
Speaker 10: finally being repaired. The problem is when they repaired it,
Speaker 10: they put the cover over it. They then found out
Speaker 10: that their brand new cover had holes in it.
Speaker 2: Boy, isn't it great that Karen Basso got a PG
Speaker 2: and e's Jennie cannonis to work for LADWP at the
Speaker 2: low low price of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 2: a year. And this was the result of the work
Speaker 2: that she did well. And I'm sure that we're paying
Speaker 2: a fortune for it too. Oh yeah, that's.
Speaker 10: Obviously an issue that has to be fixed because the
Speaker 10: water has to be protected and that's why the cover
Speaker 10: has to be sturdy. So LEDWP says they had to
Speaker 10: drain it once again and they're going to get the
Speaker 10: cover fixed now. This is the work that is being
Speaker 10: done now. They say the cover should be put on
Speaker 10: between May and September. They're hoping, hoping to get the
Speaker 10: reservoir back online by the end of the year.
Speaker 2: You know, right through fire season.
Speaker 1: It's almost as if they didn't think this through.
Speaker 10: I'll show you some other video here. This is the
Speaker 10: new cover that was put on. This is actually a
Speaker 10: year ago today. We told you about this story when
Speaker 10: this reservoir was controversial and offline. There is the cover
Speaker 10: that ultimately they determined to have holes in it. They
Speaker 10: say the holes are very small, but need to be replaced. Nonetheless,
Speaker 10: obviously people in that community very so we.
Speaker 2: Can either have a reservoir that has a lid with
Speaker 2: some holes, or we can have no water when we
Speaker 2: need it.
Speaker 1: The funny thing is when the fires knocked out the
Speaker 1: Pacific Palisades and those images of the empty reservoir went everywhere,
Speaker 1: the first thing they did was they said it was
Speaker 1: fake news. They said that that wasn't true, and then
Speaker 1: they go, oh, yeah, it was empty, but it was
Speaker 1: empty for reasons unrelated to fire safety. It was empty
Speaker 1: because of it was being fixed. And they got battered
Speaker 1: over and over and over again for that reservoir being empty,
Speaker 1: and they just took it on the chin. And then
Speaker 1: they turn around and they do the exact same thing
Speaker 1: all through fire season.
Speaker 2: Well, and don't you remember too that at the time
Speaker 2: Gavin Newsome, I mean, this sounds like Gavin if I've
Speaker 2: ever heard him, makes a big proclamation that he doesn't
Speaker 2: follow through. It says, the state is going to investigate
Speaker 2: why that reservoir was empty. Well, it's a year and
Speaker 2: a half later, were he still working on that one?
Speaker 1: He always does that big grandiose proclamations and no follow through.
Speaker 10: Obviously, people in that community very frustrated with the fact
Speaker 10: that there was no water in that critical reservoir during
Speaker 10: the Palisades Fire. LEDWP says this time around, they've got
Speaker 10: contingency plans set up. They also argue, DWP does that
Speaker 10: the reservoir being empty did not play a role in
Speaker 10: firefighting efforts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And of course they're saying that because they, just
Speaker 2: like the city and County of Los Angeles, are being
Speaker 2: sued by the victims of the Palisades Fire for their ineptitude. Again,
Speaker 2: just like when they said that it was fake news
Speaker 2: that there was no water in the fire hydrants. Initially
Speaker 2: they claimed that that reservoir was not emptied out. Did
Speaker 2: you see that just a month ago? Jennie Canonis left
Speaker 2: us High and dry to take a job in Puerto Rico.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess you got all the juice out of
Speaker 1: the squeeze first.
Speaker 2: And then the city council holds a ceremony in her honor,
Speaker 2: thanking her for her leadership.
Speaker 1: They always do that.
Speaker 10: They also argue DDWP does that the reservoir being empty
Speaker 10: did not play a role in firefighting efforts during the
Speaker 10: Palisades fire. The brought into question a lot of things
Speaker 10: for a lot of people. Hey, we've got a link
Speaker 10: on our website CBSLA dot com that actually gives you
Speaker 10: those plans that DBP has in place to deal with
Speaker 10: the reservoir and while it's offline, and you can also
Speaker 10: visit and see the full timeline of how long this
Speaker 10: project is supposed to take.
Speaker 2: Guys, Mike, there you go. The Santinez Reservoir in the
Speaker 2: Pacific Palisades is empty again.
Speaker 1: The more things change, the more things stayed the same.