WINNING: Eric Garcetti Nomination Crashing and Burning

"Why won't anyone say Hello to me?"

Soon-to-be-former Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti was destined for political stardom. He served (supposedly) as a key arbitrator with the LA Unified Teachers union and management in early 2019, trying to broker higher pay and more accountability in the district and get the teachers back to work. In January of that year, the LA Teachers all went on strike, the first time in thirty years.

Garcetti was also revving up his potential presidential chances. A lot of politicos and public thinkers, including Trump-Deranged conservative George F. Will, considered Garcetti a viable contender for the Democrat nomination in 2020.

All of that came to an abrupt halt in February 2019, since Garcetti really didn't have the time, money, or gravitas to launch a national campaign. Besides, he would have to contend with other California progressives like billionaire Tom Steyer and US Senator Kamala Harris.

From there, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and the numerous labor unions in the city turned on Garcetti. They saw him as a corporate sellout who did the bidding of the big money developers while ignoring the progressive activists in the city. Crime skyrocketed during his tenure in office, as well, and the homelessness crisis went from bad to worse.

Garcetti couldn't even run his city. What business did he have running for President, or even seeking federal office in a cabinet post? Two years ago, shortly after Biden was "elected," Black Lives Matter activists actively protested outside of his house, demanding that the Biden administration not even consider him for Secretary of Transporation.

Everyone hates Eric.

And the hate has not abated.

Biden acquiesced to consider him for the ambassadorship to India. That nomination has no proceeded as smoothly as he would have hoped. Two years into the Biden debale, and Garcetti has barely advanced out of committee ... and that was in January, 2022.

Eight months later, and his nomination still languishes.

The two US Senators from Iowa, Charles Grassley and Joni Ernst, have blocked his nomination's advancement due to allegations that the mayor ignored allegations and reports of sexual harassment in his office. #MeToo issues are all too common in California politics, and it's no surprise that Garcetti's weak leadership contributed to a climate of abuse in his own office.

Of course, there's a lot more going on behind the scenes why Garcetti can't get a break in the United States Senate. Republicans are committed to frustrating as many local progressive candidates from getting national attention. The Democratic caucus is woefully split on his confirmation, too, because of ongoing Black Lives Matter lobbying. They see him as too much pro-police, and that he did nothing for the black communities in Los Angeles. Let's not forget that Black Supremacist Melina Abdullah shouted "F--k Eric Garcetti" along with her vulgar hatred of President Trump. She condemned both of them in the same breath, by the way.

It has gotten so bad, that little Eric has asked his daddy, failed former District Attorney Gil Garcetti, to lobby for him, along with his mother. This is just sad on so many levels.

Where does the nomination stand now? Nowhere, and it looks like it is getting nowhere fast.

The Orange County Register reports:

The disastrous story of Eric Garcetti’s ambassadorship nomination drags on and on

It has been more than a year since President Joe Biden nominated Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti to serve as ambassador to India.

How much longer will Eric insist on embarrassing himself?

In the year since, Garcetti’s nomination has devolved into nothing short of a political embarrassment for the Biden Administration. As mayor of a world-renowned city like Los Angeles, Garcetti should be a shoo-in for a position like this, but his incompetence is just staggering.

Los Angeles may be world-renowned, but for all the wrong reasons. Skyrocketing crime rates, homelessness crises all over the city. Property crimes, robberies, rapes, arsons, murders are up all over the city.

Most recently, he lied to a Los Angeles Times reporter about the purpose of a recent trip to Washington, D.C.

Eric Garcetti has a truth problem? I am shocked--shocked!

Asked whether it was “now or never” on his nomination, he responded to reporter Dakota Smith, “The meetings I took, I wasn’t in D.C. on this issue.” He insisted he was there to talk about the pandemic, transportation policy and the recent Summit of the Americas.

But that wasn’t true.

Eric Garcetti can't get rid of Los Angeles fast enough. The city has turned into a third-world hellhole on his watch, so bad that the chief of police has to warn visitors that their safety cannot be guaranteed. In fact, LAPD basically had to tell tourists that they should be prepared to forfeited whatever goods or money they have if they are accosted or held up, and that they should refrain from wearing anything flashy or expensive when out and about in the city. What are we now, Minneapolis?!

“When Smith pointed out that he also met with the Hispanic Caucus, and told the mayor he wasn’t being truthful, Garcetti walked away,” the Times reported. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus itself announced having met with Garcetti and went out of its way to publicly discredit itself by issuing a statement backing Garcetti’s nomination.

So, Garcetti wants to play the race card, as if that will help his chances. What good is there talking to the House of Representatives, anyway? Is Eric so clueless, that he forgot that it's the United States Senate that is supposed to confirm his nomination?

“The mayor was also seen last week in D.C. with Breelyn Pete, a lobbyist hired by Garcetti’s parents, Sukey and Gil Garcetti, to advocate for the mayor’s nomination,” the Times further noted. “The lobbying firm where she works reported Thursday $30,000 in income during the second quarter tied to Garcetti’s parents. The firm lobbied the White House, Senate and House, according to the firm’s filing.”

Yikes.

Wow! $30,000 to hire some people to tell some other people to make Eric Garcetti an ambassador. Yet for all that time and money, nobody wants him.

Meanwhile, the Times also recently found that a report about the city’s COVID response “softened or removed” criticism of how Garcetti handled the pandemic.

For example “a sentence noting that there were complaints from staff at the Emergency Management Department, or EMD, about their work tasks being ‘politically driven’ was removed.” Further, a reference to the observation of “several department leaders who attended Garcetti’s weekly ‘cabinet’ meetings … that the meetings ‘often felt more like dictations rather than discussions’” was removed.

Garcetti resorts to doctoring reports about his mayoral governance, too.

Yikes.

Just add all of this to Garcetti’s greatest hits.

Like the Politico report that Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly felt “strong-armed over his refusal to relent on Garcetti’s nomination.” He was reportedly threatened he could be “cut off from donor networks” if he didn’t back Garcetti.

Now they are using donors to bully US Senators. How is this going to play with the rest of the caucus? Call me crazy, but I don't think that federally elected officials respond to well to being bullied in this fashion. The way that most progressive lawmakers think in Washington DC, they see the cities and states as their serfs, not their sovereigns. After all, they have no respect for federalism, the rule of law, or constituent service generally.

Or the warning from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that, “I have received numerous credible allegations from multiple whistleblowers alleging that Mr. Garcetti, while Mayor of Los Angeles, had knowledge of sexual harassment and assaults allegedly committed against multiple city employees and their associates by his close advisor, and that he ignored the misconduct.” A follow-up report found that Garcetti “likely knew or should have known” about such misconduct.

Me too.

Last year, columnist Doug McIntyre raised the point that, “Those of us who live in L.A. have additional concerns: Did the mayor also not witness the corruption that’s rampant in the city he runs? For nearly 20 years Garcetti has been in the thick of things, including 12 years on the City Council, six of them as council president.”

EEK! How could I forget that Garcetti was a swamp-creature city councilman in Los Angeles all this time? Since I mentioned his father, I cannot forget that the only reason little Eric made it in LA City politics was due to his family name. He had nothing resilient or spectacular on his resume. He never really hustled or worked the precincts that he wanted to represent on the council, either. He is a total machine hack, a selfish golden boy politico with a silver spoon in his mouth, who got where he got because his daddy got lots of money and a shot at countywide office in 1992, only to lose to a Republican in a year that was not that great for Republicans across the country (2000).

Garcetti shouldn't even be a name of any note in LA politics, but here we are.

Enough is enough. Garcetti should do the decent thing and withdraw from the process. If he can’t muster the integrity to do so, Democratic senators should speak out and make clear Garcetti doesn’t deserve the position.

Oh please, if only! Then again, his mayoral tenure is almost over (thank goodness), so he'll have plenty of time to keep begging, pleading, and arm-twisting US Senators in the vain hope that he can get a vote for his nomination.

I predict that his nomination will meander around for another six months at least. There will be a floor vote, and he will lose.

LAUSD Strike: Who's the Big Winner Now That the Strike is Settled?

This strike is a bunch of thieves and bums rushing to make their mark and make off with the most money from us taxpayers, but the ones paying the highest price are the students.

Or are they?

The strike has now ended, and it's been about three weeks since the settlement was passed and agreed to be all parties concerned.

Who are the big winners? The big losers?

Who could come out strong in the LAUSD teachers' strike when all is said and done?

A week ago, Los Angeles schools Supt. Austin Beutner went to Sacramento to nail down support for the school district if teachers decided to go on strike.

He came back sounding very optimistic that lawmakers understood the district’s finances were so perilous that it could not afford what the teachers were demanding.

Unions do not care whether there is enough money or not. They will always claim that the leadership, the administrators are holding out on the teachers and the students. They can make the argument that the school board members and upper-level staff are paying themselves big money, while so little money and talent is going to the classroom.

But the images of teachers marching in the rain, often cheered by parents and students, have amounted to powerful politics in this blue state, and have weakened the district’s hand.

The unions still wield an incredible amount of power in California, even post-Janus. Most of the teachers don't know anything but union representation and support. They can't imagine a career without the union representing them.

The teachers have told personal stories that many find hard to argue with: that too many students shouldn’t be crowded into classes, that schools should have nurses on hand every day. And that has up to now trumped Beutner’s grim financial diagnosis, even though it was largely endorsed by a county oversight agency.

The Los Angeles County Office of Education has signaled that the fiscal problems in LAUSD are immense. If the district doesn't get a hold on its finances, the district will go insolvent and the county office will have to take over.

Now, some lawmakers Beutner met with less than a week ago have scheduled a news conference Friday “in support of teachers and families to demand that LAUSD negotiate fairly.”

As the L.A. teachers’ strike enters its fifth day and a new round of negotiations begin, two realities are emerging: The tremendous enthusiasm over the walkout and the toll its taking on the school system.

This report had gone out during the strike. Looking back three weeks later, the teachers didn't get concrete gains, but some promises. They are going to get pay increases retroactive to when the previous contract had ended. The district is already drowning in debt, but they have still agreed to higher salaries, more support staff, and a promise to deliver smaller class sizes and less testing.

Of course, promises are just words. Where's the action to back up these promises?

Inside campuses, skeleton crews of supervisors, subs and remaining workers have herded students into large spaces, showing movies and plugging students into online coursework. About two-thirds did not show up, even though many working parents depend on schools to provide childcare and even meals.

To add financial insult to injury, the district lost hundreds of millions of dollars over the week of strikes.

The district estimates that each day of the strike is costing $10 million to $15 million, and Thursday’s student attendance was the lowest during the strike.

Garcetti's Presidential Bid
Has Gone Up in Flames

L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti, whose possible entry into the 2020 presidential field has been challenged by the strike, is now trying to take a leadership role in ending it.

His leadership role pretty much sunk his election chances. Plus the fact that Kamala Harris has more name recognition and national presence than a mayor for a large city. Garcetti never really had a chance to begin with. 

This was evident Thursday when he hosted negotiating teams from the school district and union at City Hall. They were the first talks in a week.

“The mayor asked and received commitment for both parties to stay at the table until they reach an agreement,” said spokeswoman Andrea Garcia on Thursday. “Mayor Garcetti has cleared his schedule and is in regular contact with both parties and state leaders, including the governor.”

Let's not kid ourselves. Garcetti was hoping to get this strike out of the way as soon as possible. He was probably spending more time testing the waters with key special interests in Los Angeles and throughout the country to see what they had to say about his efforts as mayor. They probably gave him the by and large sense that they did not like his style or his substance.

I cannot recall the number of times people criticized Garcetti for giving into special interests and developers in the region. Some of his most vocal critics actually compared him to Donald Trump!

That was never going to help his bid for President. As the chief executive who ultimately had to balance budgets and provide public safety, he was alwasy going to run progressive activists the wrong way.

Given his possible presidential ambitions, the strike’s outcome needs to be a win, and preferably a quick win. Garcetti had paid limited attention to the nation’s second-largest school district until the labor unrest.

Gov. Gavin Newsom seemingly has much less at risk than Garcetti, but he, too has been pulled into the fray.

Thanks to higher tax revenues, his new budget proposal for the state delivers added funds that could contribute to a settlement. He also faces pressure from a key ally — teachers unions — to do something to control charter schools — either by increasing oversight over them or limiting their growth, or both.

The higher revenues or a smokescreen. The wealth is fleeing California, and fast. There is no way that they can continue to spend so much money on pensions and benefits for teachers, administrators, and the rest of the bloated support staff.

Politics around charters are tricky though; both unions and charter supporters are powerful special interests.

United Teachers Los Angeles, whose power in L.A. schools had been diminished by the rise of charter schools, seems to be on roll this week. But that might not last.

It won't. If parents cannot get their kids to attend good schools in Los Angeles, they will just move out of the area, or out of the state entirely.

Parents know what is best of their children

The organizing momentum has energized members. That’s especially important because a Supreme Court ruling last year made all union dues and fees optional. And, at this point, members can look forward to a deal that meets or exceeds reasonable expectations.

Union President Alex Caputo-Pearl has raised the expectations of his members — and their animus toward Beutner — to a fever pitch. And yet a final deal may look a lot like the district’s most recent offer in the key particulars.

Peripheral elements could prove crucial — like a pilot program using union-backed reforms. Tougher accountability for charter schools at the state level also would be something the union could sell as a win.

The length of the strike also matters, as does the unknown depth of public support. For Caputo-Pearl to win policy concessions on charters at the state level, timing could be everything.

The superintendent came into office last May on a divided vote, and the mixed loyalty is showing, too. Board President Monica Garcia has often been by Beutner’s side at news conferences this week. Others on the board have been less visible.

Board member George McKenna, who voted against hiring Beutner, called this week for an immediate settlement — and he seemed to be talking to Beutner more than to the union.

Scott Schmerelson, who also voted against Beutner, issued a statement openly siding with teachers, saying he could no longer accept that board members should present a united front.

Final Reflection

I am not sure that there are winners in this debacle, ultimately. Teachers are still overwhelmed with classes that have so many students in them. There is no assurance that proper leevel sof support staff will be hired to help the teachers and the students.

What about the students, anyway? Will they learn? Will Johnny be able to read? The failure of government education has become too great for parents to tolerate long-term mediocrity. They demand the best for their students, and Los Angeles Unified is simply not delivering.

The teachers are still not paid enough, illegal aliens are straining the system to its breaking point, special interests are calling all the shots, and kids are learning to hate this country more than to honor and respect the greatness that made the United States what it is.

LAPD New Police Chief Michel Moore: What We Need To Know

Last month, I received an email from a source named "Rainbow Frozen", who had no interest in sharing with me his (or her) real name.

This person was warning me about the next LAPD Police Chief pick:

Hello Arthur,

Wanted to make you aware of the current precipice Trump supporters (and all Republicans) in the city of Los Angeles are teetering on: the very real possibility that Deputy Chief Arcos will be the next Chief of Police.

His opinion on "Trump" and "Trump supporters" is unmistakable... contrary, antagonistic and disrespectful. In this youtube video, published on 4/21/18, at the 8:06 mark, he very clearly makes his opinion known while speaking about preparing for May Day: "facilitating everyone's voice, even the pro-Trumpers that come out, we're gonna give them their little spot, all 10 of them, and all 10 of them bring a bull horn so it sounds like they have a lot more people than they have" where then his audience laughs.

Deputy Chief Arcos is one of the top 3 candidates forwarded to Mayor Garcetti by the Police Commission*. Should he become Chief of Police, the writing on the wall is clear: Trump supporters better get used to having a "little spot" on the side! And yet, according to him, when asked his opinion on Black Lives Matter: "they bring up important issues...."! (21:56 mark)

I'd love to hear about a protest or picket line at City Hall to let Mayor Garcetti know that Deputy Chief Arcos doesn't represent all Angeleno's before he is selected as the new Police Chief... yes, even if it is only 10 of us. I've checked your facebook page and didn't see anything regarding the selection of the new LAPD Police Chief.  Is anything planned? Perhaps this youtube video should be shared on your facebook page?

The last thing that anyone needed for Los Angeles was a disrespectful police chief who didn't believe equity before the law!

The writer then shared the following links with me to warn me about Arcos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICoOmZyrKwc

*http://ktla.com/2018/05/08/three-finalists-for-lapd-chief-are-a-diverse-group-of-department-veterans/

Now for the good news.

The new police chief is someone else, and I may not look his stance on every issue, at least he sounds like someone who is fair.

New Pick for LAPD Police Chief Revealed (For Courtroom News)

LOS ANGELES (CN) – Mayor Eric Garcetti selected Michel Moore to head the Los Angeles Police Department Monday, a veteran of the force and a crime statistics expert who says he wants to build trust between police and communities.

OK. We all know what that means, right? This pick is not interested in enforcing immigration laws. Of course, since 1979, Special Order 40 has precluded those efforts. Wouldn't it be nice to have elected officials who cared about protecting citizens?

At a crowded press room in the mayor’s office, Garcetti described Moore, 54, as “one of if not the most qualified law enforcement professional in America” who doesn’t need to hit the ground running because “he is already running.”

The mayor told reporters he’d only made his decision early Monday and called Moore shortly after to offer him the position.

Moore – who was passed up for the same job back when he applied in 2009 – said he wants to build on the accountability and technological reforms initiated in recent years by his predecessor Charlie Beck, who is set to retire June 27.

Why did Charlie Beck get the job in the first place? That police chief thought it was acceptable for illegal aliens to get drivers licenses and to live "freely" in Los Angeles. Also, the chief did nothing about the bootleg sellers along the sidewalks in MacArthur Park. When will the representatives of our cities stop this corruption?

Hector Villagra, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said Moore must expand the “humane” policies he has previously developed with the group.

“The new chief must commit himself and the LAPD to working collaboratively with all the communities of Los Angeles to address vital issues including completely disentangling the department from federal immigration enforcement and limiting dragnet surveillance,” Villagra said. “Moore, if confirmed, must also adopt de-escalation policies, reform gang enforcement practices and increase transparency and accountability around officer misconduct.”

The ACLU only cares about illegal aliens. Since when do criminals count as a "community"?

When asked about SB 54, the state’s so-called Sanctuary State bill that limits police collaboration and interaction with immigration enforcement agencies, Moore said “the LAPD will respect the dignity” of every resident.

“An individual’s immigration status doesn’t matter to us,” he said. “We will concern ourselves with public safety.”

Moore gave a non-answer. I guess that's the best we can hope for going forward.

Garcetti hailed Moore as a reformer and a “rethinker” at the center of the department’s recent challenges.

In recent years, Moore has been at the center of the Los Angeles Police Department challenges around police shootings, immigration and corruption. He took over the reins at the Rampart Community Police Station after a corruption scandal overshadowed the force in the 1990s.

Moore said he wanted LAPD personnel to know they could “step forward” to address challenges in policing and offer ideas and innovations.

Opposing corruption is good, but we still have this problem: "Who will watch the watchers themselves?"

Final Reflection

This chief of police candidate is focused on public safety, and he kept it as simple as that. Let's see what happens going forward. From what I have read so far, he doesn't sound like a political ideologue. Let's hope that conservatives, and Trump supporters in particular, will be able to stay safe and show our love and support for our President in public demonstrations in the years to come.

The Decline of WaPo: "Conservative" Journalist Celebrates Eric Garcetti, Sanctuary Cities

If there was no reason to despise WaPo "conservative" columnist George Will, there is now. His unfounded hatred of Donald Trump has only grown worse, and now he celebrates Democratic aspirants to challenge Trump in 2020.

His current favorite? Eric Garcetti, the son of displaced LA County District Attorney Gil Garcetti.

Really.

Here's his fawning flop of an article:

Los Angeles’s mayor deserves a presidential hearing (No, He doesn't!)

It was dicey being Jewish in a Russia that was tolerant of pogroms, and then came the threat of conscription into the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War, so one of Mayor Eric Garcetti’s great-grandfathers headed west to America. 

George Will is part of the open-borders lobby in the left-wing press. I don't recall him having such a demented determination to undermine the national sovereignty of this country in years past. I think this conservative intelligentsia establishmentarian can't handle the fact that someone he doesn't like is doing more for conservatism than he ever could have done.

Another Garcetti great-grandfather married a Mexican woman who, fleeing revolutionary ferment there, headed north to America. Which is why Garcetti, a fourth-generation resident of one of the world’s most polyglot cities, is as American as a kosher burrito, a delicacy available at Mexikosher on Pico Boulevard.

UGH. Really, George?! Multiculturalism or multi-ethnocentrism?

Trim, natty — colorful socks are, alas, fashionable — and with the polish of one born to public attention (his father, Gil Garcetti , was Los Angeles’s district attorney who prosecuted O.J. Simpson), Garcetti, like dozens of Democrats who have noticed recent presidential history, is asking: Why not me?

Notice that Will won't mention that Republican Steve Cooley blew "Silly Gil" out of the water in 2000. Part of it I imagine stemmed from his massive failures to prosecute high profile crimes like OJ.

Good question. Although presidents Andrew Johnson , Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge had been mayors of Greeneville, Tenn., Buffalo and Northampton, Mass., respectively, no mayor has gone directly from a city hall to the White House. But the 44th president came from eight years in the nation’s most docile and least admirable state legislature (Barack Obama effectively began running for president as soon as he escaped to Washington from Springfield, Ill.). The 45th came from six bankruptcies and an excruciating television show. 

Feel the love. George Will probably wishes Barack Obama were back in the White House instead of Donald Trump. I am really disgusted with this columnist. What is he thinking? 

So, it is not eccentric to think that a two-term mayor of one of the world’s most complicated cities might be as qualified to be president as was, say, the governor of one of the 23 states (Arkansas) with a population smaller than this city’s . And less challenging: Los Angeles’s schools teach children whose parents speak Tagalog and 91 other languages other than English.

How is this a good thing? Or is it even anything?!

Recent history does not suggest that America has such a surplus of presidential talent that it can afford to spurn an audition by a mayor who governs where more than 40 percent of waterborne imports enter the country — through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Where more than 50 percent of residents are either immigrants or the children of immigrants. Where immigrants from more than 30 nations form those nations’ largest overseas communities.

Immigrants, immigrants, immigrants: what about American citizens? I have to ask this question because it's become more difficult and suspect to wonder if writers and reporters are talking about men and women in this country legally ... or illegally.

"Immigrant" should only refer to people who came into this country the right way, legally, through the front door after proper vetting, paying all the fees, passing all the tests, and playing by the rules.

Garcetti’s immersion in immigration realities gives him standing to warn his party, which is addicted to identity politics, that “people do want a national identity.” We are “not an ethnic nation but a civic nation,” and Democrats must speak to “identity” rather than “identities.” 

When did Garcetti say any of the above? Let's be frank: the only reason he is taking a more middle ground on the immigration and sovereignty issues is that he wants to compete and reach out to the remaining reaches of Middle America which some Democrats might be able to win.

Also, he brings practicality to the ideological argument about so-called sanctuary cities: When a Korean immigrant, who became a citizen and later a Los Angeles police officer, was shot — not fatally — witnesses and others in the neighborhood, many of them likely illegal immigrants, came forward with information that enabled the police to capture her assailant within hours. Such police-community cooperation is, Garcetti says, jeopardized when local police are viewed as closely allied with federal immigration enforcement.

It makes some sense for Will to tag the phrase "so called" after sanctuary cities. They are not sanctuaries in any sense. In fact, they invite more drugs, corruption, human trafficking, sexual assault and abuse, and ultimately murder.

Just ask Kate Steinle.

Notice that Will writes "Many of them likely illegal immigrants." There is no assurance that their status was questionable or in question. What a shameless attempt to defend an indefensible urban policy positions. This passage was the most stunning and the most offensive and obtuse in the entire article.

Sanctuary cities are not practical and unwise. They are counterproductive, inviting more illegal aliens and their lawless presence and activities to our cities and our country. The routine argument from Establishment Republicans and accomodationist RINOs is that since the illegal aliens are already here, we might as well make the most of their presence in our country.

That is a terrible response, enabling criminal behavior and putting American citizens in danger while eroding our national sovereignty and fiscal stability.

Garcetti, 47, is a generation younger than some progressives’ pinups (Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and former vice president Joe Biden). And, living far from Washington, he is positioned to deplore the Beltway, within which his party has been concentrating power for a century. 

That is a nonsensical argument. Los Angeles has become very much a federalized city, in that the overreach of government, plus the massive collusion with public sector unions and private sector cronies has made the city all the more attached to Washington DC at the hip (and the teat). Let's cut through the crap here. Los Angeles wants to be very much a federal region, a federal area on par with the federal capital.

Garcetti is another big government statist, and there is no panache about this guy which suggests that he could be any kind of progressive darling. He is the male version of Hillary Clinton (not that Hillary Clinton is any less of a man, anyway).

He suggests a rule for those who are perpetually enraged about the president: “You only get five minutes a day to yell at your TV.”

The truth is that every foray he makes into the public square involves castigating President Trump. Of course, he begs for federal dollars as often as possible. One has to wonder how much longer he can kick down the President in public, but kiss up to him in private.

 Democrats, he says, sometimes are “the smarty-pants party” that does not “speak plain English.” He seems, however, to be tiptoeing on eggshells when trying to avoid offending his party’s easily offended keepers of litmus tests. When, last September, an interviewer asked him whether gun manufacturers should be liable for the misuse of their products, he said, “I think you have to be open to that.” Such mush (Should we be “open to” distillers’ liability for drunken driving?) does not move nominating electorates.

If Will finds him unmoving and unimpressive, why write an article glorying over him? Eric Garcetti won re-election by a wide margin because so few people voted (how many residents in Los Angeles are illegal aliens? Of course, legal status has never prevented illegal aliens from voting in the City of (Fallen) Angels before.

New York’s mayor from 1933 to 1945, Fiorello La Guardia, a Republican in a Democratic city, famously said, “There is no Republican or Democratic way to pick up the garbage.”

All of that has changed now that Democrats are more committed to communism and cronyism than country. The politicization of the justice system has worsened, too, especially where Democrats have won supposedly non-partisan offices.

And mayors have what Garcetti considers “the luxury of doing.” But Los Angeles mayors are not powerful — the schools are run by others — and he must get along with the mayors of 87 other cities in Los Angeles County. This is, however, training for the presidency, which is less powerful than those who seek it think it is, until, in office, they must deal with Washington’s rival power centers.

Will should talk about the backstage Deep State takedown which the Beltway bureaucracies are waging against President Trump. He won't, however, because he would love to see Trump dumped, even though he was elected by the lawful process outlined in the Electoral College.

In 2020, California’s presidential primary, which usually has been a June irrelevancy, will occur in March. This might also benefit Kamala D. Harris (D), the state’s freshman U.S. senator. Anyway, Garcetti deserves a hearing. America could do worse. It usually does and, in 33 months, it probably will.

Shame on George Will. That's what I must write first.

Second, shame on him for defending outlaw sanctuary cities. Notice that he didn't write about the horrific murder of Tierra Stansberry and four other Americans in the Westlake Section of Los Angeles. Their killed? A 22-year old illegal alien from Honduras, Johnny Josue Sanchez, who had set fire to an abandoned warehouse.

One of the homeless, Deadre Mitchell, rushed into the building to save the four other lives, native Iowans trying to reconnect after two of them had fled the country. Sanctuary cities hurt American lives, and they protect no one but the corrupt, undocumented politicians covering for themselves and their future careers.

We just cannot allow "conservative" arguments like the ones proffered by George Will to go unchallenged. No wonder he's not making the lecture and TV circuits the way he used to. Does he work for MSNBC now, too?

Citizens Denied Entry to Garcetti-Pelosi-Gomez Town Hall in Highland Park (Photos)