By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent interview with Ben Shapiro, California Governor Gavin Newsom softened his criticism of ICE, despite his office previously describing the agency as engaging in “state-sponsored terrorism.” Newsom conceded to Shapiro’s framing of ICE officers not being terrorists and even boasted about California’s cooperation with ICE, including over 10,000 deportations under his leadership. This stance, which included disagreeing with calls to abolish ICE, drew criticism from progressives who felt it was out of touch with the Democratic base and a sign of weakness. Some commentators believe this performance could negatively impact his chances in the 2028 presidential race.
Read the original article here
‘Grow a F*cking Spine’: Critics Fume as Newsom Backtracks on ICE ‘Terrorism’ in Ben Shapiro Interview
The outcry following Gavin Newsom’s interview with Ben Shapiro is palpable, a collective groan echoing from within the Democratic ranks. The primary point of contention, seemingly, is Newsom’s perceived softening of his stance on ICE, particularly the implications of his language regarding their practices. It’s a sentiment of betrayal, a feeling that Newsom, in seeking broader appeal, has sacrificed principle.
Newsom’s decision to engage with Ben Shapiro, a figure often associated with conservative viewpoints, immediately drew criticism. The sentiment is clear: Shapiro’s platform isn’t one that deserves amplification, and granting him an interview is seen as a misstep. The core of the frustration boils down to the feeling that Newsom is prioritizing strategic optics over substantive policy, a characteristic frequently associated with “corporate Dems” who fear alienating powerful financial interests. This is about more than just political alignment; it’s about perceived courage and commitment to core values.
The most heated critiques revolve around ICE itself. The consensus is that ICE’s very existence, in its current form, is problematic. It’s seen as an entity that does more harm than good, an instrument of terror rather than a force for justice. The call to “dissolve and replace” ICE is a common refrain. The anger stems from what is perceived as a failure to recognize the harm inflicted on communities. Critics believe Newsom missed an opportunity to firmly condemn what they see as a destructive agency.
It’s about more than just ICE; it’s also about a perceived lack of consistency and conviction in Newsom’s positions. He is regarded as an opportunist who tailors his message to what he believes the audience wants to hear. This perceived lack of authenticity fuels the perception that Newsom is not someone who will stand firm on principles when facing pressure. This makes him untrustworthy in the eyes of many.
The criticisms extend beyond this single incident. The issues plaguing California, particularly the cost of living and housing crisis, are pointed to as examples of Newsom’s shortcomings. Despite having a supermajority in the state legislature, he hasn’t successfully addressed these issues. This is seen as a sign that he lacks the ability to execute on promises.
The critics believe Newsom’s strengths are mostly in the social issues, issues that could be easily weaponized by the right-wing. In essence, he is seen as a vulnerability for the Democrats. His approach is characterized as calculated and lacking the genuine commitment to change that many voters crave.
The perception that Newsom is beholden to corporate interests is a recurring theme. The accusation is that he is a “billionaire-puppet” more concerned with maintaining popularity than fighting for progressive causes. His actions are not viewed as coming from an ideological position but out of strategic positioning, often putting his political career ahead of the needs of the people. This is seen by many as a deal breaker.
This criticism is not just coming from outside the party. The fact that Newsom slept with his best friends wife while they were working on their marriage and then blaming it on alcohol, or was married to Kimberly Guildoyle is not seen as an endorsement for his actions.
Many are looking for a true, genuine public servant, for example, someone like Bernie Sanders. They see Newsom as a candidate who is out of touch and doesn’t have the best interests of the public at heart.
There is a sentiment of disappointment. The notion that Newsom is “controlled opposition” suggests a belief that he’s not a true advocate for the progressive cause. This sentiment seems to be growing.
The most damning accusation is that Newsom “does not care”. His actions are seen as empty gestures devoid of empathy. This speaks to a profound distrust of Newsom’s character and motivations.
The feeling is that Newsom is more focused on political maneuvering than on enacting meaningful change. It’s a perception that threatens to undermine his potential.
The criticism is that Newsom will tank the momentum he has gathered by catering to the right. He doesn’t have the backbone to stay strong and committed.
The ideal candidate needs to be committed to clear policy changes, such as defunding ICE, expanding the courts, universal healthcare, affordable housing, and raising the minimum wage. The belief is that Newsom doesn’t believe in these things, or at least he will not fight for them.
Ultimately, the backlash against Newsom is a reaction to perceived weakness and lack of conviction. It’s a call for Democrats to nominate a candidate who will stand firm. Newsom’s performance during the interview has fueled a sense of disillusionment and calls into question his suitability to lead the Democratic Party.