Meg Whitman has been getting really creative of late on the immigration issue. In Spanish language media, she’s been against SB 1070, Arizona’s immigration law, since, well, forever. Meanwhile, in her native tongue, well, she’s singing a different tune.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman – who has campaign billboards and Spanish-language ads in California declaring “NO to the Arizona law” – told talk show hosts Wednesday that the same controversial immigration law should be allowed to stand in Arizona.
“You know, I’m running for the governor of California so I had to make a decision,” Whitman said. “Does the Arizona law make sense for California? And I have said no, I don’t think the Arizona law makes sense for California because we have a much bigger state with much bigger geography.”(SacBee)
You can grab the audio of the interview here. (h/t to Chris Kelly of Huffington Post). But the sum total of her point is that, yeah, she’s cool with it being in Arizona, but just doesn’t want to pass it in California. But in the end, let’s sort her mixed messages:
Meg Whitman supports SB 1070 in Arizona.
She can muddle through whatever she plans on saying to different portions of the media, but she can’t continue to do so without being called out for it. John Kerry caught hell just for trying to explain Senate procedures. Those are arcane, but perhaps so is eMeg’s thought process here. She was against it before she was for it, before she was against it, before she was neutral(ish) on it.
Meg Whitman is just wrong for California.
UPDATE: I would be remiss if I didn’t include this Spanish ad from California Working Families. It was just released yesterday, and basically is all over Whitman for talking out of both sides of her mouth. Of course, instead of addressing the point of the ad, the Whitman campaign cries crocodile tears that Brown isn’t doing these ads himself. Attack the messenger all you want, how about the message?
“You know, I’m running for the governor of California so I had to make a decision. Does the Arizona law make sense for California? And I have said no, I don’t think the Arizona law makes sense for California because we have a much bigger state with much bigger geography.”
Beyond Whitman’s attempt to have it both ways on this issue, just what does she mean by this statement? Bigger geography? Is she implying that the area in square miles of a state determines whether or not you pass legislation in favor of racial profiling? Does this mean that in any states smaller than Arizona, it’ll be okay to pass similiar legislation (I believe that would mean 43 states would qualify).
Or is she referring to ethnic make-up of a state in making this determination? Just what would be the guidelines for THAT?
Either discrimination and profiling are wrong or they’re not, Meg. Which is it?
Oh yeah. That depends on what language you’re speaking.