Conservative commentators are reacting to a Washington Times opinion column that calls California Gov. Gavin Newsom “the epitome of a hypocrite,” “the embodiment of elitism,” and “the quintessential leftist bureaucrat,” and that says whispers suggest he wants the White House in 2028.
The column, published by the Washington Times on September 27, 2026, and carried on the outlet’s social media account @WashTimes, was written by columnist @ckchumley. It frames Newsom as a figure whose national ambitions rest on a record that conservative critics say does not match the image.
“Newsom was the epitome of a hypocrite. He was the embodiment of elitism. He was the quintessential leftist bureaucrat — and now the whispers are he wants the White House in 2028,” @ckchumley writes in the column.
The column’s language has been picked up and repeated across conservative media, where the argument is not simply that Newsom is a flawed candidate, but that he has become a kind of caricature. One outlet, CDN, published a piece a day ago under the headline “Forget Newsom as a Candidate. He is a Caricature of a President,” arguing that there is no more comical setting than Gavin Newsom addressing a climate change conference — a failing governor and a cause that lost its steam.
That framing — that Newsom’s national image is built on a cause and a record that have both lost momentum — is the through-line connecting the column and the coverage that followed. The criticism is not limited to a single policy dispute. It targets the persona: the governor who presents himself as a progressive leader while, in the conservative telling, embodying the very elitism he claims to oppose.
The reaction is notable for how quickly it moved from a newspaper opinion page to a broader argument about the Democratic Party’s bench. The column does not report a formal announcement. It refers to “whispers” — an acknowledgment that the 2028 talk is speculation, not a declared campaign. That distinction matters: there is no announced candidacy, no filing, and no official statement from Newsom in the material being circulated.
Still, the column’s phrasing has given conservative commentators a ready-made frame. The words “hypocrite,” “elitism,” and “leftist bureaucrat” function as a summary of a longer case that has been building against Newsom for years — a case that his defenders would dispute, but which the column presents as settled.
In the same Washington Times opinion section, a separate column by Jed Babbin turns to a different subject: artificial intelligence. “There is nothing we can do to stop the AI race. We must go ahead with the development of AI to defend our nation’s security, which includes our economy. The stakes could not be higher,” Babbin writes, according to the @WashTimes post carrying the column.
That argument — that the AI race is unstoppable and that the United States must press forward for national security and economic reasons — sits alongside the Newsom column as part of the same day’s conservative opinion output. The two pieces are not directly linked, but together they illustrate the range of the outlet’s commentary: one focused on a possible Democratic frontrunner, the other on a technological competition framed as a security imperative.
The AI column’s claim is presented as a strategic assessment, not a news report. It does not cite a specific program or announcement. It argues from the premise that the race cannot be halted and that the consequences of falling behind are severe. The stakes, in Babbin’s formulation, include both national security and the economy.
For readers following the Newsom reaction, the more immediate development is the spread of the column’s language. The @WashTimes account carried both opinion pieces, and the Newsom column in particular has been referenced in subsequent conservative coverage. The CDN piece published a day ago is one example: it takes the caricature argument further, suggesting that Newsom’s climate conference appearances have become a symbol of a cause that has lost its steam.
What the coverage does not do is confirm the underlying claim. The column says “whispers” exist about a 2028 run. It does not name who is whispering, and it does not present evidence of a campaign-in-waiting. The CDN piece similarly treats the caricature as an argument, not a reported fact. Neither outlet states that Newsom has decided to run, and neither claims to have confirmed a timeline.
Next News Network could not independently verify the claims about Newsom’s 2028 intentions or the characterization of his record.
The reaction is also notable for what it avoids. There are no engagement figures cited here, and none are needed to show that the argument has traveled. The column appeared on the Washington Times opinion page and on the @WashTimes account. It was then picked up by CDN and others in the conservative ecosystem. That is the sequence: a column, a social media post, and a wave of commentary.
The Babbin column follows a similar pattern of argument from first principles. “There is nothing we can do to stop the AI race,” he writes. The claim is absolute — not that stopping it would be difficult, but that it cannot be done. From there, the conclusion is that development must continue. The reasoning is that national security includes economic security, and that AI is now central to both.
That argument has become a common refrain among conservatives who favor a rapid buildout of American AI capacity. It is also a point of tension with those who want guardrails, an issue that has divided both parties. Babbin’s column does not address the guardrail debate directly; it frames the choice as between advancing and falling behind.
For Newsom, the significance of the column is that it consolidates a line of attack. The words “hypocrite,” “elitism,” and “leftist bureaucrat” are not new, but placing them in a single sentence alongside a 2028 reference gives them a sharper edge. The column is an opinion piece, and it is labeled as such. But its language is now circulating as a shorthand for a broader critique.
Whether that critique gains traction beyond conservative media is an open question. The column itself does not claim to have polling or internal Democratic opposition research. It relies on the “whispers” formulation — a way of signaling that the 2028 talk is real enough to discuss without asserting that it is organized.
The CDN headline goes further, urging readers to “forget Newsom as a candidate” and calling him a “caricature of a president.” That is a judgment, not a report. It is presented as an argument about political theater: a governor addressing a climate conference while, in the outlet’s view, his state and his cause both struggle.
Taken together, the two Washington Times columns and the subsequent coverage show a conservative opinion ecosystem doing what it does: taking a figure and a theme, testing the language, and seeing what travels. The Newsom column supplies the character sketch. The AI column supplies a policy argument. The CDN piece supplies the headline that ties the Newsom critique to a visual — a governor at a podium, a cause losing steam.
None of that establishes that Newsom is running, or that the whispers are more than whispers. It establishes that the argument is being made, and that it is being made in a way designed to stick.
Our Take
The conservative argument against Gavin Newsom has always been that he is a performer without a record — a man who talks like a man of the people while living like a man of the mansion. The Washington Times column simply puts it in a sentence. The 2028 whispers are real enough to be worth discussing, but they are still whispers, and the column treats them that way. What matters for conservatives is that the caricature is now the shorthand. If Newsom does run, he will have to answer for the climate conference image, the elitism charge, and the hypocrisy label. Those are not policy disagreements. They are character arguments, and they are the kind that tend to harden over time. The AI column is a reminder that the right is also thinking about the future in bigger terms — not just who runs, but what kind of country they inherit. On both fronts, the stakes are high, and the language is already being set.
