The California Primary as refracted through The Financial Times and The Washington Post.

The California Primary was about the  same old New Democratic hacks, the utterly vile Feinstein, the erstaz Anti-Trump poser, return. With the addition of Newsom, who has a built-in edge in the LBGTI Community, for his performance of marriages, in the state before it was actually  legal. Some of us Queers are grateful, and some found it grandstanding! But it was the adroit exercise of the lifeblood of politics ‘Public Relations’ as the Madison Ave. and Hollywood  hacks call their propagandizing.

If you read and used the California Statewide Direct Primary, the official guide that all voters use, you’ll see that neither Newsom nor Villaraigosa bothered to place the usual candidate statement in this guide. Even Feinstein managed to post her exercise in self-congratulation, along with a carefully re-touched black and white photo.  The big question is why?  Villaraigosa is a compliant New Democrat, as is Newsom.  Villaraigosa immediately endorsed Newsom after his defeat. The ads I saw from Newsom were focused on his opposition to the NRA, featuring his status as the brave opponent of this powerful advocacy group. The usual political kitsch, communicated by video of Newsom striding through crowds of supporters, shaking hands with the lesser beings that he seeks to lead, and the obligatory shots of his encounters with the children of those lesser beings, and quick photos and videos of him performing those marriages. In sum, the Villaraigosa candidacy supplied the the fiction of contest.

See James Hohmann’s  Washington Post  essay on the California Primary, and other states, of 2018 that reads like a Press Release from the victorious Sen Feinstein’s office. Mr. Hohmann scolds ‘The Left’ for being what they are an actual opposition!  I’ll post a link and picture of part of this lengthy essay at my blog:



About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.