By John Q. Hosedrinker 
California Governor Gavin Newsom has humorously “banned” Kid Rock from entering the state following the release of a shirtless workout video featuring the singer and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Newsom’s official social media account criticized the video as “inappropriate, creepy, and very low energy,” specifically mocking Kid Rock’s pushup form and the duo’s choice to wear jeans during their workout. This incident is the latest in a series of public exchanges between Newsom and Kid Rock, who previously engaged in a social media dispute.
Read the original article here
It seems there’s a lot of buzz, and frankly, a good dose of amusement, surrounding the idea of Governor Gavin Newsom effectively “banning” Kid Rock from California. While the initial reactions lean towards the sensational, digging a bit deeper reveals a complex mix of commentary, with many folks online finding the notion both hilarious and, for some, a tad concerning. The sheer visual of Kid Rock, often described in rather unflattering terms – think “dogshit,” “cigarette butts,” or a “Molester Uncle Rock” persona – failing to make the cut for California’s standards adds a layer of dark humor to the whole situation.
The comparisons made between Newsom and Kid Rock are quite striking, with a notable observation being that Newsom, despite the perceived “ban,” is actually three years older than Kid Rock. This detail, while seemingly minor, highlights the age-old adage of appearances being deceiving, especially when one figure is often portrayed as a boisterous, aging rocker. The imagery conjured of Kid Rock’s physical state is consistently unflattering, suggesting a lifestyle that has clearly taken its toll, leading some to quip about him needing to see a doctor. The idea of “Rob Ritchie from the mean streets of Romeo, Michigan” encountering such a ban also elicits chuckles, underscoring the perceived disconnect between his public persona and the reality of his background.
Beneath the surface of jest, however, lies a deeper skepticism about the legality and enforceability of such a supposed ban. Many express doubt, wondering if it’s even possible to legally prohibit someone from entering an entire state. The question arises whether this is akin to a warrant or a formal order, with the general consensus leaning towards the idea that it’s more likely a performative gesture than a concrete legal action. The sheer absurdity of the scenario prompts reactions ranging from outright dismissal as “nonsense” to an appreciation of its comedic value, with “hilarious” being a frequently used descriptor.
There’s also a notable contingent of commenters who view this “ban” as a distraction tactic orchestrated by Newsom. Their perspective suggests that while Kid Rock may be an easy target, this move is a way for the governor to divert attention from other, potentially more significant, issues. This line of thinking posits that Newsom isn’t genuinely championing the working class, as some might assume, but is instead engaging in political theater. The mention of “befriending the billionaire class” and the suggestion of a wealth tax further fuel this sentiment, with some arguing that Newsom’s actions are less about genuine populism and more about maintaining a certain political image.
The dialogue also touches upon the broader political landscape, with Kid Rock’s alignment with MAGA making him a lightning rod for criticism. The suggestion that Kid Rock might be the “My Pillow Guy” of a different political stripe highlights the shared disdain from those who oppose both figures. Furthermore, the notion of a “wealth tax” resurfaces, indicating a desire for more substantial policy changes rather than what some perceive as superficial political stunts. The idea of a “Dem Trump” also emerges, reflecting a concern that certain Democratic politicians might be adopting populist, or even bombastic, tactics that mirror those of Donald Trump.
The satirical nature of the “ban” is acknowledged by some, with one comment explicitly stating, “Yes I know it’s satire.” However, even within this recognition, there’s a lingering sentiment that Newsom’s actions, satire or not, are still an “embarrassment.” The description of Newsom as a “cringelord” who is “dumb, and without substance” paints a picture of a politician whose public persona is seen as awkward and lacking in genuine impact. The desire for him to be the Democratic nominee is met with skepticism by these commenters, who believe he doesn’t possess the qualities needed for such a prominent role.
The discussion then pivots to the practicalities and the potential fallout of such a pronouncement. The question of enforceability looms large, with many questioning how such a ban could possibly be upheld. The imagery of Newsom acting like a “Compton Crip” issuing “no fly zone notices” is a vivid, albeit somewhat incongruous, comparison that underscores the perceived theatricality of the situation. The contrast between this perceived political drama and the real-world concerns of California residents – such as being snowed in without power – further amplifies the criticism directed at Newsom. This highlights a perceived disconnect between his actions and the pressing needs of his constituents.
The ongoing commentary also delves into Kid Rock’s own perceived flaws, with mentions of his substance use and a supposed lack of self-awareness. The “pushups in the sauna with RFK Jr.” anecdote serves as a visual cue for this perceived decline. The consistent negative portrayal of Kid Rock’s appearance and behavior, even when acknowledging the satirical nature of the “ban,” suggests a widespread dissatisfaction with his public persona. This, in turn, makes the idea of him being barred from a state like California, regardless of the validity of the “ban,” a source of entertainment and a reflection of broader cultural and political divides.