Just when Democrats seem incapable of saying anything unscripted and against their ideals, Governor Gavin Newsom of California said biological males playing in girls’ sports is “deeply unfair.” Of course, he didn’t step off a ledge, only peeked over it and repeated the sentiment. “I think it’s an issue of fairness,” he told conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk on the debut episode of This Is Gavin Newsom, a podcast in which the governor intends to have “honest discussions with people who agree and disagree” with him.

Why would Newsom start a podcast? Maybe it’s an attempt to rebrand himself to prepare for a presidential bid in 2028. Why else would he take time away from California’s myriad problems to pander to the right? Regardless, he’s not the first politician to start a talk show. Will his effort to reshape the electorate’s opinion of him work or end in career suicide?

For starters, Kudos to the governor for inviting Kirk on the show and for the willingness to hear opinions with which he disagrees. But if California’s faux golden boy even stands a chance of reshaping the public’s perception of him, he will need to learn how to debate. He spent much of his first show agreeing with and praising Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, a student organization about as far right as California is left.

“In order to do that,” said Newsom when Kirk was discussing how President Trump won the youth vote, “you have to stand for something. You have to assert yourself. You have to have a strategy, and you gotta implement it.”

“You also have to not believe crazy stuff,” said Kirk.

Newsom half-nodded while quietly echoing Kirk: “And not believe in crazy …” but then he stopped and steered the conversation in another direction, which seemed to be his primary strategy: agree but keep the conversation moving to avoid having to take a serious stance. Kirk was charitable but still took a few potshots here and there. The governor would just giggle and switch the topic to something like, “What about this CRT stuff? You think it’s in K-12? I was trying to find it.”

A lot about this show enraged many Democrats. However, the part where the governor agreed with Charlie that biological males should not play in women’s sports was what made headlines.

“I revere sports, so the issue of fairness is completely legit,” Newsom said. “And I saw that — the last couple years, boy did I see how you guys were able to weaponize that issue at another level.”

“Not weaponize,” said Kirk – the governor cut in, backpedaled, and swapped the overused word with “highlight,” a move some thought made him look weak.

Liberty Nation depends on the support of our readers. Donate now!

Keep in mind: “California education code permits athletes to participate on whichever team is ‘consistent with his or her gender identity,’” explains the Daily Caller. “The state’s Civil Rights Act further includes ‘gender identity’ under its definition of sex.” So Newsom offered nothing to support his state’s laws or his own decisions as governor: not exactly a winning strategy if you plan to debate one day as a presidential candidate. With empty rebuttals like that, the podcast may end up being a tool for right-wing figures to spread their message instead of a platform for Newsom to chase the Democratic ticket.

The leader of the Golden State appeared submissive more often than not unless Kirk mentioned California’s shortcomings and struggles. Then the governor would perk up and stiffen his shoulders, getting defensive but sticking to his talking points. He would regurgitate statistics while trying to wiggle out of questions he didn’t want to answer, a counterproductive feat when trying to tackle “the hard issues.”

“You signed a law where teachers can’t even tell parents if their kids are trans,” said Kirk.

“Not true,” said Newsom. “They can. They just can’t get fired for not doing that.” Is that right? “The law was explicit. You can’t be fired for not snitching on a kid.”

“That’s a charitable reading,” said Kirk.

Newsom nodded along to his guest’s reasoning but eventually appeared worn out, half-muttering, “There’s so much extreme work in this space.” If he can’t have an honest conversation about his policies and ideas and explain the logic behind them, what is the point of the podcast other than performative politics? Is he just going to bring on conservative voices and hope for the best, then stop, drop, and roll when the room gets hot?

A few times, Kirk suggested the governor take action. If he agreed with Kirk on certain topics, why wasn’t he doing anything in his state to change the issues? “Pornography shouldn’t be in schools,” said the right-wing influencer, “as simple as that.” Newsom agreed, of course, but after his guest told him he should remove all books with pornographic images from schools, the governor spewed some facts, shrugged when challenged, and then replied: “Okay, okay . . . I don’t even want to go forward anymore on this.” Yikes. If that’s how he intends to carry conversations in future podcasts, why bother?

Newsom mentioned several times that the Democrats were getting “clobbered” and “crushed.” He asked for guidance on a few occasions, too. He seemed determined to learn what his MAGA visitor would do in his shoes. “But what do you do then?” he said. “Seriously, Charlie Kirk, give us some advice.”

“Get better ideas, governor.”

At the end of last year, Newsom had a 27% favorability rating based on 30 polls, according to The Hill, which is likely a big reason why he started the podcast. He knows that Trump dominated alternative media and that legacy media is dead. He knows if he has any shot of climbing the ticket and maybe, just maybe, making the Oval Office, he needs to win people over. He also knows he can’t do that in Democratic circles – not right now, not with the party clutching onto its radical doctrine like a life preserver, unaware it’s an anchor. So he created his own space, a podcast, likely hoping to separate himself from the tainted pile of progressive ideals, a hard trick when he has run the most progressive state in the country for over four years.

Much of how this unfolds might depend on his principles, if he has any – whether he will defend them or change them, and how the electorate perceives his endeavor. Who knows? Maybe he’ll be the person who leads the left out of the black hole that’s pulling it further from reality. Or he could end up alienating himself from his party and his base (whatever remains of it). Then what? Will he veer to the right, get captured by his audience, and move from pseudo-moderate to center-right until one day he’s toeing the MAGA line and championing Trumpian policies? Then again, maybe podcasting is his retirement plan.