<p class="ql-block"><b style="font-size:20px;">Why does Gavin Newsom ramble?</b></p><p class="ql-block"><b style="font-size:20px;">為什么加文·紐森說(shuō)話總是語(yǔ)無(wú)倫次？</b></p><p class="ql-block"><b style="color:rgb(128, 128, 128);">By Richie Greenberg </b></p><p class="ql-block"><b style="color:rgb(128, 128, 128);">作者:里奇·格林伯格</b></p><p class="ql-block"><b style="color:rgb(128, 128, 128);">Published March 7, 2026, ET</b></p><p class="ql-block"><b style="color:rgb(128, 128, 128);">發(fā)布于美國(guó)東部時(shí)間 2026 年 3 月 7 日</b></p> <p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Politicians ramble because often, the game rewards it. </span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">政客們之所以喋喋不休，往往是因?yàn)檫@種做法能獲得回報(bào)。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Rambling can be smart evasion: Say too little and you’re perceived as evasive; say too much and the question disappears in a cloud of words.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">啰嗦有時(shí)是一種巧妙的回避：說(shuō)得太少會(huì)被認(rèn)為閃爍其詞；說(shuō)得太多，問(wèn)題就會(huì)淹沒(méi)在滔滔不絕的話語(yǔ)中。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Problem is, the rest of us get fairy dust in lieu of answers to real-world issues. </span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">問(wèn)題是，我們其他人得到的只是虛幻的魔法，而不是解決現(xiàn)實(shí)世界問(wèn)題的答案。</span></p> <p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Enter Gavin Newsom. 加文·紐森登場(chǎng)。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Pressed for an answer or comment, he’ll pivot to a safer topic, bury the hot potato under stats and stories, or loop through abstract ideals until the interviewer loses the will to live. Classic moves — a real phony.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">如果被追問(wèn)答案或評(píng)論，他會(huì)立刻轉(zhuǎn)移話題，用數(shù)據(jù)和故事掩蓋棘手的問(wèn)題，或者喋喋不休地談?wù)撘恍┏橄蟮睦砟?，直到采訪者失去耐心。這些都是慣用的伎倆——真是個(gè)徹頭徹尾的騙子。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">The latest example? The gov’s appearance on Adam Friedland’s podcast the other day. The host asked the most basic question imaginable: “Vote for you (Newsom) and you get what?”</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">最新的例子？ 就是州長(zhǎng)前幾天做客亞當(dāng)·弗里德蘭的播客節(jié)目 。主持人問(wèn)了一個(gè)最基本的問(wèn)題：“投票給你（紐森），你會(huì)得到什么？”</span></p> <p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:15px; color:rgb(128, 128, 128);">Pressed for an answer or comment, he’ll pivot to a safer topic, bury the hot potato under stats and stories, or loop through abstract ideals until the interviewer loses the will to live. Classic moves — a real phony.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:15px; color:rgb(128, 128, 128);">如果被追問(wèn)答案或評(píng)論，他會(huì)立刻轉(zhuǎn)移話題，用數(shù)據(jù)和故事掩蓋棘手的問(wèn)題，或者喋喋不休地談?wù)撘恍┏橄蟮睦砟?，直到采訪者失去耐心。這些都是慣用的伎倆——真是個(gè)徹頭徹尾的騙子。</span></p> <p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Any normal candidate would rattle off three priorities and call it a day. Newsom, however, treated it like an invitation to deliver the Sermon on the Mount by way of a community-college philosophy seminar.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">任何正常的候選人都會(huì)列出三項(xiàng)優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)然后就結(jié)束競(jìng)選。然而，紐森卻把這次競(jìng)選當(dāng)成了在社區(qū)大學(xué)哲學(xué)研討會(huì)上發(fā)表《登山寶訓(xùn)》的盛宴 。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">He declared himself a “Sargent Shriver Democrat,” channeled the “spirit of the ’60s,” then casually name-dropped Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela into his personal “why.” </span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">他自稱是“薩金特·施萊弗民主黨人”，秉承“60年代精神”，然后隨意地將馬丁·路德·金、圣雄甘地和納爾遜·曼德拉的名字融入到他個(gè)人的“初心”之中。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Friedland’s flat “What??” was the only honest response possible. Millions who watched the clip later agreed: Newsom is bizarre.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">弗里德蘭那句冷冷的“什么？？”是唯一真誠(chéng)的回應(yīng)。后來(lái)數(shù)百萬(wàn)看過(guò)這段視頻的人都同意：紐森真是個(gè)怪人。</span></p> <p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">The man sounded like he was auditioning to be the next civil-rights emoji, not explaining why anyone should vote for him.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">這個(gè)人聽(tīng)起來(lái)像是在試鏡成為下一個(gè)民權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)的表情符號(hào)，并沒(méi)有解釋為什么有人應(yīng)該投票給他。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">In too many respects, Newsom offers a masterclass in avoidance. Once he was the golden boy of West Coast liberalism: telegenic, articulate, effortlessly smooth and oh that hair!</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">在很多方面，紐森都堪稱回避問(wèn)題的典范。他曾是西海岸自由主義的寵兒：上鏡、口齒伶俐、舉止優(yōu)雅，還有那一頭秀發(fā)！</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Yet he’s spent the last couple of years morphing into a walking advertisement for verbal overindulgence sprinkled with a flip-flop here and a pander there.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">然而，在過(guò)去的幾年里，他卻逐漸變成了一個(gè)夸夸其談、言辭反復(fù)無(wú)常、迎合大眾的活廣告。</span></p> <p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Is he running for president in 2028? Yes! Well, maybe not. Didn’t he pretty much rule out a run? But maybe this actually means yes. It’s like his excuse for dining at the French Laundry despite his own COVID lockdown protocols: just drop your mask between bites.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">他會(huì)參加2028年的總統(tǒng)競(jìng)選嗎？有可能！嗯，也許不會(huì)。他之前不是已經(jīng)基本排除參選的可能性了嗎？但也許這次的解釋其實(shí)是“會(huì)”。這就好比他違反自己制定的疫情封鎖規(guī)定，去法國(guó)洗衣房餐廳吃飯的理由：吃東西的時(shí)候摘下口罩就行了。</span></p> <p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">His style has become a curious hybrid: Biden’s meandering self-corrections meets Harris’s abstract buzzword loops, with an extra layer of self-important historical cosplay thrown in for good measure.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">他的風(fēng)格變成了一種奇特的混合體：拜登漫無(wú)邊際的自我糾正，加上哈里斯抽象的流行語(yǔ)循環(huán)，再加上一層自以為是的歷史角色扮演，可謂錦上添花。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Today’s media love sound bites, and politicians seem to ramble in search of one. Longer answers let them hammer talking points, dunk on opponents, or sprinkle in folksy anecdotes for that “authentic” vibe. </span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">如今的媒體喜歡用簡(jiǎn)短精悍的語(yǔ)言來(lái)吸引眼球，而政客們似乎為了找到這樣的詞語(yǔ)而滔滔不絕。較長(zhǎng)的回答可以讓他們強(qiáng)化論點(diǎn)、抨擊對(duì)手，或者穿插一些民間軼事來(lái)營(yíng)造“真實(shí)”的氛圍。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Sometimes it’s personality: the desire to sound profound, the fear of dead air, or just plain discomfort with brevity.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">有時(shí)是性格使然：渴望聽(tīng)起來(lái)深刻，害怕冷場(chǎng)，或者只是單純地不喜歡簡(jiǎn)短。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Bottom line: Crisp answers are high-risk, high-reward; word salad is low-risk, medium-annoyance. Voters may roll their eyes, but the politician usually walks away unscathed. </span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">總之：簡(jiǎn)潔明了的回答風(fēng)險(xiǎn)高，回報(bào)也高；含糊其辭的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)低，但會(huì)讓人略感厭煩。選民可能會(huì)翻白眼，但政客通常能全身而退。</span></p> <p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">The real fun starts when the microscopes arrive. Put any politician, or his loudest cheerleaders, under sustained scrutiny and watch the polish crack. </span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">真正的樂(lè)趣從顯微鏡出現(xiàn)時(shí)才開(kāi)始。把任何一位政客，或者他最熱情的支持者，放在持續(xù)的審視之下，你就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)他光鮮亮麗的外表下隱藏著不為人知的一面。</span></p> <p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Debate stages, hostile podcasts, viral gotcha clips, street confrontations: Suddenly their rehearsed lines evaporate, replaced by repetition, tangents, defensive spirals, or outright word vomit. </span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">辯論臺(tái)、充滿敵意的播客、病毒式傳播的抓包視頻、街頭沖突：突然間，他們排練好的臺(tái)詞消失了，取而代之的是重復(fù)、離題、辯解式的螺旋式反駁，或者干脆胡言亂語(yǔ)。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Many simply fall apart because the moment demands real-time thinking, not memorized scripts. </span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">很多人之所以會(huì)崩潰，是因?yàn)楫?dāng)下需要的是實(shí)時(shí)思考，而不是背誦的臺(tái)詞。</span></p> <p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">And Newsom is no different.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">紐森也不例外。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Like Biden, whose off-script moments increasingly featured trailing thoughts, factual slips, abrupt pivots, and the occasional “anyway” that signaled he’d lost the thread, Newsom can’t seem to stay on the rails when the stakes rise.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">就像拜登一樣，他的即興演講越來(lái)越頻繁地出現(xiàn)思路中斷、事實(shí)錯(cuò)誤、突然轉(zhuǎn)變以及偶爾的“總之”等情況，這表明他已經(jīng)失去了思路；紐森似乎在關(guān)鍵時(shí)刻也無(wú)法保持理智。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">His default mode is to overexplain: history lessons, stats dumps, and family anecdotes, all layered until the original point is buried under an avalanche of verbiage. </span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">他的慣常做法是過(guò)度解釋：歷史課、統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)和家庭軼事，層層疊加，直到最初的觀點(diǎn)被淹沒(méi)在大量的文字之下。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">In tough interviews or live settings, he almost never lands a fast, concise zinger.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">在棘手的采訪或現(xiàn)場(chǎng)場(chǎng)合，他幾乎從未說(shuō)過(guò)一句簡(jiǎn)潔明了的妙語(yǔ)。</span></p> <p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">He just … keeps … going.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">他就這樣……一直……繼續(xù)下去。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Listeners tire; critics clip; the mockery writes itself.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">聽(tīng)眾感到厭倦；評(píng)論家們開(kāi)始批評(píng)；嘲諷之詞不言而喻。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">And then there’s the profanity. Once upon a time Newsom spoke in complete, measured sentences fit for prime time. These days he swears like a sailor who just stubbed his toe.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">還有他滿口臟話。曾幾何時(shí)，紐森說(shuō)話條理清晰、措辭得體，很適合黃金時(shí)段的節(jié)目。如今，他罵起人來(lái)就像水手不小心踢到腳趾頭一樣。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">He recently told Louisiana’s attorney general to “go f— yourself” over an abortion lawsuit threat. When Sean Hannity hit him with racism accusations tied to offhand 960 SAT-score comments, Newsom fired back online: “Spare me your fake f—ing outrage.”</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">他最近因?yàn)橥{要提起墮胎訴訟而對(duì)路易斯安那州總檢察長(zhǎng)爆粗口。當(dāng)肖恩·漢尼提指責(zé)他種族歧視，并提及他隨意評(píng)論 SAT 960 分時(shí)，紐森在網(wǎng)上回?fù)舻溃骸笆∈∧隳翘搨蔚牧x憤填膺吧。”</span></p> <p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">It’s clearly an attempt to sound raw, combative, anti-elite: a tough-guy populism from a guy who owns multiple vineyards.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">這顯然是想營(yíng)造一種粗獷、好斗、反精英的形象：一個(gè)擁有多個(gè)葡萄園的人所展現(xiàn)的強(qiáng)硬民粹主義。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">The problem? It comes across less like authenticity and more like a politician who’s run out of answers and decided vulgarity will do the trick.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">問(wèn)題在于？這與其說(shuō)是真誠(chéng)，不如說(shuō)更像是某個(gè)政客黔驢技窮，決定靠粗俗的言辭來(lái)博取同情。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Paired with the rambling and the historical fan fiction, it just makes him look volatile and unserious. </span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">再加上他語(yǔ)無(wú)倫次的言論和歷史同人小說(shuō)，只會(huì)讓他看起來(lái)反復(fù)無(wú)常、不認(rèn)真。</span></p> <p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">After years surrounded by yes-men Democrats and compliant media in Sacramento, Newsom is slowly getting hit with the reality stick. </span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">在薩克拉門托被唯唯諾諾的民主黨人和順從的媒體包圍多年后，紐森正慢慢地被現(xiàn)實(shí)擊中。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">Even mainstream reporters are catching on to his nonsensical ramblings and embellishments. </span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">就連主流媒體記者也開(kāi)始注意到他那些毫無(wú)邏輯的胡言亂語(yǔ)和夸張之詞。</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">We’ve seen this fairy-dust act before; we’ve learned our lesson and we see the truth: Newsom may well be incapable of giving the direct, candid and sensible answers we need as a nation.</span></p><p class="ql-block"><span style="font-size:20px;">我們以前就見(jiàn)識(shí)過(guò)這種花言巧語(yǔ)；我們吸取了教訓(xùn)，也看清了真相：紐森很可能無(wú)法給出我們作為一個(gè)國(guó)家所需要的直接、坦誠(chéng)和明智的答案。</span></p> <p class="ql-block"><i style="color:rgb(128, 128, 128);">Richie Greenberg is a political commentator based in San Francisco.</i></p><p class="ql-block"><i style="color:rgb(128, 128, 128);">里奇·格林伯格是一位居住在舊金山的政治評(píng)論員。</i></p>