Some Newsom detractors make up stuff, though there’s fodder for legitimate criticism

As Gavin Newsom ramps up his almost certain campaign for president, and polls put him in contention for the Democratic Party’s nomination in 2028, he has become a favorite target of right-leaning commentators on network television and in YouTube videos and social media.

While some criticism is grounded in fact and reasonable differences, there’s also a substrata of highly exaggerated, even fictional, output. Talking heads present him not as an ambitious politician who poses as a selfless public servant — something they all do, including the current president — but as a crooked charlatan.

There’s plenty of material in Newsom’s nearly three decades-long political career for legitimate criticism. And he tends toward over-the-top braggadocio about his accomplishments and amnesia about his failures.

However, his most virulent critics take nuggets of fact — including those having nothing to do with Newsom — and pump them up to depict him as an agent of corruption and incompetence.

One much-repeated trope is that Newsom, in concert with Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, purposely or incompetently failed to protect residents of the city and suburban neighborhoods from devastating wildfires early this year.

President Donald Trump fed that narrative by accusing Newsom of not sending enough water to Southern California, thus leading to shortages that impeded firefighting. It’s just not true, but it’s repeated, with embellishments, on a regular basis.

Another oft-aired criticism of Newsom misuses a column I wrote when he was inaugurated in 2019. It depicted the fascinating interconnections between his family and the Getty, Brown and Pelosi clans, stretching back more than eight decades.

Videos that frequently pop up on YouTube quote from the column verbatim, without attribution, and show the chart of family connections that accompanied the article. Then they tack on fact-free addendums suggesting connections to organized crime or some other nefarious activities.

Another line of criticism cites some left-wing legislative or ballot measure proposal, treats it like it’s already in law, portrays its supposedly devastating effect on the innocent public and lays it at Newsom’s feet. The proposed wealth tax, which could appear on the 2026 ballot, is one favorite topic, even though Newsom has repeatedly rejected it.

Many of Newsom’s critics who breathlessly report on his evil plans (that the left-wing mainstream media supposedly cover up) are just nobodies who feign authority and are obviously fronting for right-wing organizations. But some are recognizable California figures.

Two frequent YouTube critics are Carl DeMaio, a longtime Republican politician in San Diego who won a seat in the state Assembly last year, and Victor Davis Hanson, an historian connected to Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

DeMaio’s shtick is that he has discovered some horrible thing that Newsom and other Democrats have cooked up to damage honest, hard-working Californians, but that mainstream media have ignored. It’s usually accompanied by a pitch for donations to his organization.

Hanson is a widely recognized, erudite authority on military history, particularly World War II. He also fancies himself a political commentator with a particular bead on Newsom, but his critiques are often factually deficient.

One of Hanson’s favorite assertions is that Newsom diverted bond funds meant to construct new water projects into financing the demolition of four dams on the Klamath River. However the commitment for that project dates back to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s governorship, and the bond issue specifically contained the appropriation for it.

Distorted criticism of Newsom is more off-putting than even his own tendency to bend historic fact. It also undercuts legitimate questioning of Newsom’s record, because he can, and does, depict any negative depictions as baseless propaganda.

The anti-Newsom drumbeat is likely to get louder as he moves ever closer to a declaration of presidential candidacy. Viewer beware.