Meg Whitman briefly checked in with the San Mateo County Courts a couple of days ago, and was told that she was on call.  She got that call, and apparently the whole buying the governor is going to get her out of jury duty for the time being.

Earlier in the day, while being questioned, Whitman told attorneys she would serve if selected but acknowledged this is “not a good time for me to give 100 percent.”

Defense attorney Richard Keyes asked the former eBay CEO if, considering “the nature of your current position “… this might be one of those cases that it’s not the right time” to serve on a jury.

“I would try my very best,” Whitman replied. “Whether it is the right time for me is another question,” she added, drawing laughs from the courtroom.(SJ Merc)

Whitman was “Juror No. 11”, which meant that unless she was disqualified for some reason, she would have been on the pool.  We all have lives and commitments, some of us choose to honor them, and honor our democracy by doing the little things, like jury duty, and, well, voting. Running for governor is great, and it takes a special person to do it.

It also takes a special person to sit on a jury for a terrible child molestation case. Or to work as an in-home support service worker, or as a teacher.  

Perhaps Queen Meg would be served well by partaking in the tasks of everyday Californians a bit more.

Meg Whitman has an ad out with some specifics about how she’s going to cut 40,000 jobs without harming state services. And she’s really serious about this.  Only problem is that her plan is really nothing new at all, her “facts” are just wrong, and as an added bonus she goes after the most needy among us while ignoring those who skirt taxes and the billions of unnecessary tax loopholes and credits.  Stay classy Meg!

Take a listen to the ad here, the biggest part of this plan is for a civil grand jury to go through and find the “waste, fraud, and abuse.” That would be a great idea for some body to go through and compile a list of everything that should be combined, reduced, and other savings opportunities.  So great in fact that it has been done before.  And not like done before thirty years ago, but done before as in 2005.  Arnold Schwarzenegger had this same plank, but he dubbed it the California Performance Review.

These sorts of reviews aren’t really all that cheap, so what Meg is asking the state to do is to write another report, on the taxpayers dime, when the CPR is still sitting there. Sounds like some waste to me.

Meanwhile, as she continues on the “billions of waste, fraud, and abuse” right-wing canard, she’s really talking to the right-wing base, in the whole wink-wink way.  When she says there are billions of waste in IHSS, Medi-Cal, and welfare, what she is talking about to the right-wingers is the whole concept of those programs.  To them, IHSS is a big waste. That is until one of their family members gets sick and they need to rely on state assistance. If you look at the actual reports, IHSS fraud exists sure, but not to such a great extent that it is really any more prevalent than other workplaces.

California Watch investigates another flaw in the ad, her statement of fact that the LAO has called 150 employees at the Department of Education superfluous.  Of course, they have now changed that to 70 people, months before the ad went on the air, and even that number is heavily disputed by SPI Jack O’Connell, who has said that cuts on that scale would stop the Dept. of Education from carrying out the tasks assigned to it under law.  

The whole ad is feeding into the theory of government is not supposed to do anything, shutting down our infrastructure, and stopping the cycle of investment that worked so well for us as we made California into the truly Golden State. Meg Whitman’s future is a grim future, where there is no such thing as a fair share, where everybody is left to fend for themselves, and the governor’s gig is just a stop on the way to the top for her and her right-wing policies.

San Francisco has a lot of courts, and a lot of litigation is done here.  So, there is always a need for jurors.  I’ve been called several times, and a word for the wise: Hope for the civil courts: the facilities are much nicer as you wait there.

But, it seems that Queen Meg Whitman deigned to join the common folk for jury duty yesterday:

Her campaign said Whitman was called, showed up, filled out the questionaire today — and is actually still in the jury pool. She may still be called to return later in the week, they said.

The funny part: the judge actually asked the former eBay CEO if she had any hardships, or scheduling problems with serving. That’s when she informed him that…uh, she was running for governor of California.

Darrel Ng, spokesman for Whitman, issued this statement: “Meg Whitman was called to do jury duty today. She enjoyed meeting her fellow potential jurors this afternoon, but looks forward to returning to the campaign trail where she can continue to tell Californians about her plans to create 2 million jobs during the next 5 years.” (SFGate)

Isn’t it sweet that she introduced herself to the fellow jurors? Super sweet! I wonder if she introduced herself to the court employees that she hopes to fire as well. But, you know, she’ll tell them how she’d definitiely, totally, going to create a new job for them (perhaps as her private plane pilot?!) once they are laid off. It’s going to be great. Seriously!

Props to Carla Marinucci and the SF Gate crew for the follow-up joke: at least we know she is registered to vote now.

But that brings up the larger question, doesn’t it?  For years she hadn’t even registered to vote.  Of course, that generally means no jury duty as well. But what else does Meg Whitman not do because she is…umm…Meg Whitman?

Oh, the possibilities when you are uber wealthy!

What the wonderful world of interwebz brings us these days.  You can pretty much find anything, join anything, whatever.  But today, you can now become a proud member of GenM!

What’s that you say? Why, it’s a “coalition of entrepreneurs, executives, & professionals dedicated to getting Meg elected as next Gov of CA.” Apparently, they are not down with the blue-collar folks, as they are absolutely and completely not allowed into the generation.

And by generation? I mean a twitter account with witticisms such as:

via the the Competitive Enterprise Institute.The worst attorney general in America is California’s Jerry Brown #GOMEG

Of course, what exactly is the “CEI”? Well, they are a front group for Big Oil and Big Tobacco.  According to SourceWatch, some of their big donors include Texaco, Phillip Morris, and guess who…our good old friends the Koch family. You know, the ones that are secrectly funding the Prop 23 campaign in order to save themselves some cash as they continue to pollute our air.

Yup, such pithy sayings are GenM is THE generation to join. I mean, who doesn’t want to snuggle up close to the never-ending cash buckets that seem to trail around both Big Oil and Meg Whitman, and especially the convergence thereof.  

All the Best executives of California are joining, don’t you know?  Um, well, at least the 124 followers anyway.  Quite the generation there.

As you may or may not know, I do some work for candidates in the online space.  One of the questions that campaigns frequently ask is whether they can use names of people that have signed up on their Facebook pages or website as supporters. My customary answer is something like, “well, a lot of people just like to see the messages coming out of the campaign and haven’t yet committed.”  

I say this because I know it to be true: I do it myself on occasion.  In fact, even if you want to disagree with a page’s posting, you have to “like” it. Otherwise you can’t post a comment. There are reasons for that, pro and con, but them’s the rules. Best to know them before you step on the field.

However, apparently the eCandidate’s team didn’t really brush up on that…and got burned by it. From the always resourceful CalBuzz team:

Calbuzz pal Barbara O’Connor, one of our favorite, well-informed eggheads on the subject of state politics and government, checked in to say that reports about her supporting Meg Whitman are not only wrong but also result from a manipulative practice by Team eMeg.

Meg Whitman’s Facebook ad misused my name. They said I was a supporter because I looked at her website and Facebook page as an observer. So much for trying to see what they are posting. If you see my name on any of their materials please complain and ask it to be pulled. I am not supporting her.

Duly noted. To get off the list, she defriended eMeg. (Gasp!)

For her part, Barbara O’Connor is doing what she has to do to keep tabs on the campaigns.  This is what you have to do these days.  And for Whitman to think there is an endorsement in there tells us a lot about her campaign.  Sure, it’s everywhere on TV, but it’s all about smoke and mirrors.  A mile wide and an inch deep.

Hey do you vote?  Well, if you are reading this, the answer is probably yes.  And you would assume that pretty much anybody who was really interested in politics would have done so for pretty much every election.  Not so with Meg Whitman.  She’s less interested in such trivial matters when she can go ahead and just plunk another $104 million into the game.  

But, some really good people fought like hell to give her that right to vote that she has chosen to cast away.  So, a few groups have banded together to remind her of said fight, on the 90th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment

Whitman’s spotty voting record, of course, has been an issue in the gubernatorial campaign, and the candidate herself has called it “atrocious.” But the California Nurses Association, the Courage Campaign  and a host of labor groups intend to remind voters again, insisting they’ll deliver the largest and possibly most colorful anti-Whitman rally ever on the 90th anniversary of the day the 19th amendment was signed into law. …

The 4 p.m. rally near the Capitol steps will include folks in period costumes, historical characters, newsboys and Elizabth Jenkins-Sahlin, the great great grandaughter of the women’s rights pionner Elizabeth Cady Stanton,says CNA spokesman Chuck Idelson. (SFGate)

Should be fun for the whole family, don your best bonnet if you are in the neighborhood.

As millions of Californians continue to struggle in this economy, Meg Whitman will spend her evening today collecting huge checks from corporate insiders at the posh Corona Del Mar mansion of fellow billionaire CEO Henry Samueli.

Of course, there’s nothing unusual about candidates holding fundraisers, even billionaires like Whitman. But there’s more to meets the eye with this particular fundraiser considering the host’s background. And there’s some serious questions that need to be raised about whom exactly would have Whitman’s ear if she were to be elected governor.

Among the most burning questions raised in relation to tonight’s Whitman-Samueli cash bonanza is: Why would Whitman draw herself further into the web of corporate greed and corruption epitomized by Broadcom, the company Samueli led until forced out amidst the nation’s largest stock backdating scandal?

California Labor Federation Executive Secretary-Treasurer Art Pulaski:

Meg Whitman’s decision to hold a high-dollar fundraiser with another billionaire CEO whose questionable practices have drawn the attention of federal investigators is both troubling and illuminating. It’s clear that Whitman is growing bolder in her shameless attempt to buy this election. The fact that she would consort with controversial corporate figures like Samueli to fatten her already bloated war chest shows a serious lapse in judgment.

While many corporate insiders are aware of Broadcom’s troubles, Samueli’s past isn’t on the radar of most Californians. But given Whitman’s close ties to him and other corporate CEOs, it probably should be.

A look under the surface shows Whitman and Samueli have more in common than being billionaire CEOs. Both were corporate insiders whose companies were involved in questionable insider deals that made millions for executives at the expense of shareholders. Both Whitman and Samueli’s companies have been targets of federal investigations into the very same kind of shady Wall Street dealings that drove the economy into meltdown.  

Samueli’s Broadcom was involved in the nation’s largest stock backdating scandal after it failed to disclose to investors that the company had reset the dates of company stock grants to executives in order to artificially boost profits. Broadcom’s backdating scheme resulted an SEC investigation, Samueli’s ouster, and Broadcom eventually paid $160.5 million in investor settlements. Samueli pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators before, in an unusual move, a judge threw out the guilty plea. Samueli returned to Broadcom earlier this year as chief technology officer.

Of course, Whitman is no stranger to corporate scandals. Back in 2001, she was a Goldman Sachs board member who was directly involved in the decisions about executive bonuses and mortgage-backed securities that are now cited as major causes of the economic meltdown and the ensuing jobs crisis. Whitman pocketed almost $ 2 million by “spinning” sweetheart stock deals she scored as a reward for bringing Goldman lucrative investment banking contracts, a practice that soon became illegal.

Whitman resigned from the board after a Congressional probe into spinning but Goldman is still dealing with the aftermath of SEC investigations into the company’s shady dealings and recently coughed up more than $500 million to satisfy the charges.

It’s pretty easy to imagine the enormous influence corporate types like Samueli would have in a Whitman administration. It’s also deeply troubling that it’s that very type of influence Wall Street had with George W. Bush, and we all know the end to that story. If we’ve learned anything from the economic meltdown caused by Wall Street’s greed, it’s that when corporate insiders get too close to government power, working people pay the price.

Pulaski:

The last thing California’s working families need is more of the same corporate greed and corruption that destroyed our economy. Cozying up to corporate insiders in order to get elected shows that Whitman remains tone-deaf to the growing concerns voters have about her Wall Street ties and agenda.

Paid for by the California Labor Federation. Not authorized by a candidate or committee controlled by a candidate.

Where does Meg Whitman stand on immigration? Well, that all depends on when she’s being asked, where she’s being asked, and who is doing the asking.

* Last year, in an attempt to cater to her Republican base as she prepared for a heated primary, Whitman told reporters she believes the state should “prosecute illegal aliens and criminal aliens in all of our cities, in every part of California.”

* This spring, in a stark reversal, Whitman spoke out against the Arizona immigration law when it first passed in April.

* When Whitman’s primary opponent, Steve Poizner, began gaining traction by veering far to the right on immigration, Whitman’s campaign advisor, former Governor Pete Wilson, produced an anti-immigrant radio ad, touting Whitman’s opposition to “amnesty” and her plan to block immigrant families the having access to education, driver’s licenses and other vital services. He said she’d be “tough as nails” on immigration. Gov. Wilson is the notorious architect of Proposition 187, the initiative that sought to deny immigrant families these same basic rights.

* Whitman’s hypocrisy became even more evident when she told a reporter, “You haven’t seen an ad from me with the border fence,” while at the same time airing TV ads across the state that prominently feature the border fence.

* Just one week after winning the primary, Whitman again changed direction, and began airing Spanish-language ads during the World Cup, indicating she was against the Arizona immigration law.

* But in late July, she went on a conservative talk radio station and said she thinks the Arizona law should stand.

* One week later, Whitman opened a “Latino outreach” office in East LA, and was greeted with a mob of protesters, furious over her perpetual flip-flopping on immigration.

* At the same time, she was also being lambasted by the right-wing John & Ken show, again for flip-flopping on immigration.

[Edit by Robert: Click through to read the rest!]

By our count, Whitman has changed her position on immigration at least five times since announcing her candidacy. And in her cynical ploy to mask her true positions, Whitman managed to alienate both the left and the right… and certainly isn’t making a case to Latinos. A recent poll shows that Jerry Brown still has a commanding lead among Latinos — 42 percent for Brown compared to just 18 percent for Whitman.

That’s because California Latinos remember that Jerry Brown stood up for immigrant workers when he marched with Cesar Chavez and gave farmworkers the right to form and join unions to collectively protect themselves from being exploited at work. And they also remember that Whitman has been changing her mind on Latino issues whenever it suits her.

Columnist Thomas D. Elias points out this example:

In one of her Spanish-language ads, Whitman says “The Latino kids attending public schools in California today will be tomorrow’s doctors, engineers, businessmen and teachers. I want them to have the opportunity to go as far in life as their God-given talent will take them.”

Unless, notes Democratic Party communications director Tenoch Flores, “their hard work and talent take them to a California institution of higher learning.” If they make it there and their parents are illegal immigrants (regardless of the kids’ own status), Whitman’s policy statements say they shouldn’t be allowed to stay long. In the spring primary, she said such “Latino kids” should be banned or removed from community colleges and the Cal State and University of California systems. Will Latinos remember those declarations?

Our answer is yes, they do remember. And they will still remember in November, regardless as to how many more million-dollar ads Whitman airs.

Paid for by the California Labor Federation. Not authorized by a candidate or committee controlled by a candidate.