Meg Whitman is trying to shoot the moon with her latest announcement of a position on Prop 23:
Whitman has said she would suspend the law, AB 32, for at least one year, and in a written statement this morning she called the law a “job killer” and said it needs to be revised.
However, Whitman said Proposition 23 “does not offer a sensible balance between our vital need for good jobs and the desire of all Californians to protect our precious environment.”(Sac Bee)
Here’s her math here: Prop 23 is trailing in the polls, and Democrats are generally bludgeoning the Republicans on this issue. Boxer used it effectively against Fiorina at the last debate, and Jerry Brown has been hammering at Whitman for her failure to announce a solid position.
But, this isn’t a solid position. Now, it will be enough to convince a few folks perhaps, but anybody that is really voting on the candidates based upon environmental concerns is hardly going to love this position. That one year moratorium isn’t really that hidden as a means of killing AB 32.
Whether the political tradeoff for whatever centrist votes she can get for whatever Right-wing votes she lost was a good one for her is an open question, but expect some additional anger on the right. But hey, they like that sort of thing.
Well, after a few weeks of up and down in the polls, Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown are now at a dead heat in the latest Field Poll. Each is sitting at 41 percent of likely voters (MoE +/- 4.1%) with 6 weeks to go. The numbers break down how you would generally expect these things to go, Whitman gets 75% of Republicans, Jerry Brown gets 69% of Democrats, and they split the DTS vote at 38% each. Now, what Meg Whitman has got for her $111 million is that split down the middle in DTS vote, which you wouldn’t normally see absent the unprecedented ad buy, as well as her capturing 15% of the Democratic vote compared to Brown’s 9% of the Republican vote.
But like everything else in California politics, it seems people don’t particularly like either of the candidates:
“This race is boiling down to a tough decision,” said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. “More voters hold negative than positive impressions of the candidates, and that contributes to the situation.”(SacBee)
Whitman has a minus 5 favorable (40/45) while Brown sports only a minus 3 (44/47). These aren’t numbers you would typically love to see an inspired electorate. But, with the barrage of ads from Whitman, and the smattering of efforts on the left, people know that they just shouldn’t like these candidates. They aren’t exactly why, but it’s what they’ve been told on the TeeVee, the radio, and on the internet. And so, shockingly enough, all that money is having an impact.
Over the next 5+ weeks, while surrogates and the campaigns continue to wail on each other in every media outlet available, the candidates themselves will be trying to give the state some reason to vote for them. In the end, however, the Field numbers indicate about half of all voters will be choosing the lesser of two evils rather than somebody they believe in. Only 49% of Whitman voters and 53% of Brown voters are voting for their candidate rather than against the other one. This is unfortunate on many levels, not the least of which is that the state needs a leader who has some political capital (read: not Whitman’s millions) to make something happen in Sacramento.
All things considered, Jerry Brown has to like where he is sitting right now. He’ll nearly match Whitman in ad spending the rest of the way, and will hope that Democrats start returning home when they hear a message from their candidate. At any rate, this is clearly shaping up to be one of the tightest elections in recent memory. Progressives will need to focus on turning out and getting their networks to turn out for the Democratic ticket this year, the idea of a Whitman/Fiorina victory party is too difficult to process.
Call me shocked, just shocked to find that there’s gambling with California’s future in this election.
The state legislator responsible for placing Proposition 23, the anti-climate measure, on the ballot is…a climate zombie. And one of Proposition 23’s out of state dirty energy supporters, Koch Industries, Patient Zero of the climate zombie infection is holding a fundraiser Thursday night for climate zombie Senate wannabe Carly Fiorina.
WWMWD? Will Meg Whitman endorse Proposition 23 and its oil-soaked supporters, or will she join the forward-thinking California businesses who urge a no vote?
Proposition 23 seeks to “suspend” AB32, California’s landmark global warming law, until the Twelfth of Never unemployment reaches 5.5% for four quarters. Proposition 23’s money is coming almost exclusively from out of state oil interests such as Valero Energy, Tesoro Energy, and Koch Industries. As a proxy for a national climate fight, the initiative is drawing national attention. A Koch-funded astroturf group, Americans for Prosperity, calls Proposition 23 our highest priority.
Stupid went viral and infected Logue. He’s one of the climate zombies of the new GOP — Republicans who deny climate science. He’s also a back-bencher who will have very little impact on California politics if Proposition 23 fails. Far more high-profile is fellow climate zombie Carly Fiorina.
Not sure whether Fiorina is a climate zombie? Listen:
As a true climate zombie, Fiorina flaunts her corporate ties. Koch is one of two corporate sponsors of a fundraiser Thursday night. (The other is a plastic surgeons’ PAC — no misogynistic/ageist jokes, please.) All it takes to join her at an exclusive sponsor/host VIP reception is $5,000. A certain amount of avarice-fueled stupid won’t hurt.
Governors, Senators, and low-level state legislators may come and go, but the effects of Proposition 23 — whether it passes or fails — will echo in California and the nation for years. Our choice is stark: build the clean technology future or burn the planet, leaving it fit for habitation only by the undead.
Full disclosure: as an unpaid volunteer, I wrote the No on Prop 23 for the California Democratic Party’s cool new website. All opinions are my own.
FLOREZ STATEMENT ON WHITMAN CALLING FRESNO “AWFUL” AND EXPRESSES FRESNO LOOKS LIIKE DETROIT
SACRAMENTO – Senator Dean Florez, D-Shafter, responding to gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s recent description of Fresno as looking like Detroit and calling it “awful,” Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez who represents portions of Fresno made the following statement:
“Billionaire Meg Whitman gave us a quick peek as to just how out of touch she is with the realities of working Californians by describing the city of Fresno as “awful.” While we may not travel by private jet, have the biggest homes or live by designer labels as Ms. Whitman, we in the Valley have great pride in our city and in our ability to feed the world. I don’t think Ms. Whitman recognizes how her comments stigmatize Fresno and the folks who live here. Whether it was purposeful or not, it just shows how unprepared she is to lead this state by making such off-hand and ignorant statements about an important part of California.”
As the saying goes, from a political perspective, apparently “Not the brightest light in the Chandelier” kind of statement. Rookie candidate mistake?
Trash Talking Any City In California, while running for Statewide office, especially Governor, makes one wonder if she is actually spotting Jerry Brown five points! Wonder how many folks in Fresno will vote and wouldn’t it be interesting if the race for Governor was lost by Whitman by the number of registered voters in Fresno? Something for Meg’s team to chew on for awhile…..
Meg Whitman was greeted at a fancy high-falutin’ $1000 a person fundraiser by a crowd of protesters, angry over her supposed “plan.” By plan I mean corportization of our state government combined with a subtle effort to just get rid of the whole thing. But, she did her best to rally the base with the noted War Hawk and architect of failure, Condoleeza Rice.
[T]he Republican candidate, speaking to the audience, said she was confident she will turn out the Republican base, noting they are already “carrying pitchforks and torches..and saying “which way to the castle?”
And the former eBay CEO also vowed to turn out Latinos, small business owners, and women, boasting she is working to build “the largest women’s coalition ever in American politics.”
Whitman also predicted she will attract 18-29 year old voters who supported President Barack Obama in the election of 2008, because she said they are now concerned about one issue — jobs.(SF Gate)
Everything is bigger with $150 Million dollars! But her underlying facts are dead wrong. Not only are voters between 18-29 strongly going towards Jerry Brown, after all, this is one of the most progressive generations in quite some time, but her “coalition” is a paper tiger. It’s a lot of pretty posters and posturing, but where will she be when the rubber meats the road.
I should add what is the deal with candidates calling their own supporters an angry and out of control mob. Way to fuel the fire. As Arnold Schwarzenegger learned (just see his latest poll numbers) the outsider card only works for so long, eventually, when real results are required, her big talk will amount to even less than what we’ve gotten with the Governator.
Even if you aren’t a fan of Meg Whitman’s management, you still have to admire eBay. It is a company that brought together people to buy and sell from across the country, then across the world. Any way you slice it, the big idea of an online auction, started by Pierre Omidyar was an idea that helped accelerate the digital economy. Millions of small businesses, and all that we’ve been hearing Meg Whitman promote.
Thing is, Meg Whitman wasn’t the one who came up with that idea. She helped foster the idea from a small operation into an international collussus, and on the way certainly did a better job than CEO flame-outs like Carly Fiorina, but the ideas that she was building were never her own.
So, why not ask Pierre Omidyar what he thinks of Meg Whitman? Certainly there are few people that know her better than he. And they have each other to thank for their respective fortunes. So, would Omidyar vote for Meg Whitman? In a word, No.
“Now I have not endorsed her because we have some differences on some of the political issues,” Omidyar, who is now based in Hawaii, told Bloomberg TV in an interview that will air Wednesday on “InBusiness with Margaret Brennan.” “I was disappointed in her not-correct decision, in my view, to support Proposition 8 in California. I was disappointed in her alignment with former Governor Pete Wilson on immigration issues, who I think took some very extreme views years ago about denying benefits to illegal immigrants. And so because of those types of issues, I think we are a little bit apart, and I can’t quite support her because of that.” (LA Times)
Omidyar does well to call attention to Whitman’s new-found love affair with Wilson, the godfather of Proposition 187, the measure that stripped away benefits from immigrants that he rode to re-election in 1994. Wilson is also the chair of Steve Cooley’s campaign for Attorney General. Through these two, Wilson is attempting to extend his influence, with all the concurrent hard feelings that brings.
Whitman is wrong on immigration. And she is wrong on Prop 8. She’s just wrong for California.
You know the days of Hiram Johnson, when he hoped to create a system that wasn’t controlled by the railroads, or whatever interest was dominating at the time? Well, we’re past that whole industry domination now, and have moved on directly to power of the person. Not of the people, just the person. In our current case, that person is Meg Whitman and her eBay warchest.
Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman said Monday that she would place pension cutbacks on the ballot if negotiations with state workers fail and would consider using her personal fortune not only to win office but to advance her agenda if elected.
Taking the issue to voters is “not my first choice,” she told The Bee’s editorial board. “But if we have to … this is an issue we have got to take up.”(SacBee)
She went on to say that she opposes collective bargaining for state employees. Period. End of sentence. Now, she’s not likely to make friends with the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association that just gave her its endorsement on the condition that she say that pension reform doesn’t apply to law enforcement. But, that was painfully transparent in its say what you need to say attitude; this statement calls for the end to collective bargaining (and thus, all unions) in the public sector. The CSLEA board is going to have a fun time explaining that one.
Returning to where we started, California politics hasn’t yet gotten to the point where it is completely owned by just one interest. Part of that is the competing interest groups pushing back against each other, but that part can be easily overwhelmed by a new influx of cash, tipping the balance towards the corporate dollars.
Of course, there is one side of the political power equation that isn’t so vulnerable to Whitman’s money binges. The people, if we found the time, could be an informed decision maker. However, as of right now, we seem to wait back for what the TeeVee ads tell us/scare us/yell at us. One can only hope that this is the year that we say no to the purchasing of our statehouse for good.
Meg Whitman has been under some pressure to take a position one way or the other on Prop 23. It would be nice to know what her take on one of the most major pieces of (anti-)environmental legislation in the nation is. Yet she has persistently and consistently denied all efforts to get her to say yay or nay.
But never you mind, she is very supportive of Prop 22:
The Republican gubernatorial nominee came out in support of Proposition 22, which would forbid the state from raiding county and city coffers at times of fiscal crises.
At an event in Culver City, a laid-off Long Beach teacher asked Whitman about her thoughts on decentralizing education spending. The state has cut billions in education spending in recent years, leading to widespread teacher layoffs, program cuts and the shortening of the school year in many cities.
“There is a proposition on the ballot in November that actually makes it illegal for the state to take money from cities and counties to balance the budget,” said Whitman, who is known for being disciplined in sticking to her talking points during campaign events and discussions with the press. “I think it’s the right thing to do. I’ll be supporting that initiative.” (LA Times)
Now, of course, this wasn’t really the question asked. Prop 22 doesn’t really change the general structure of education funding. Now, it does change the way the state can grab money that was destined to be allocated at the local level. However, education spending, which is heavily determined by Prop 98 formulas, will most assuredly not be given a boost by Prop 22.
It should also be noted that Prop 22 also has a nice little plug in there for redevelopment agencies, which are kind o f the scorn of the right-wing. They have some eminent domain powers, and folks like Chuck DeVore are not very big fans of Prop 22 for precisely this reason. It will be great to see how those right-wingers take the news of Prop 22.
And then there is the fact that Whitman has still not taken a position on Prop 23 yet. We’re still waiting on that…
Apparently Meg Whitman doesn’t like her own plans for California, or else why would she threaten to sue TV stations if they don’t hide her true ideas from the state:
Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is threatening to sue television stations that run a California Teachers Association ad attacking the candidate, calling the spot a lie.
The Whitman campaign today said some stations have pulled the ad. The CTA said it is trying to confirm that. … CTA spokeswoman Sandra Jackson said the ad’s claim relies on Whitman’s plan to cut $15 billion in state funding overall. She said cuts to education typically make up about half of total budget cuts. (SacBee
In the letter, Whitman’s attorney (and attorney for the proposed GOP Dirty Tricks) said that she hadn’t specifically cited education as a target for cuts. But, you know what, there are pretty little magazines that you can control, and then there is the real world. If Meg Whitman really wants to cut another $15 Billion, where does she think that is going to come from? She’s not doing anything about tax loopholes, heaven forbid.
Her pound of flesh is coming from California’s most vulnerable, and she will extract for the short-term from the promise that California holds for the long haul. She will slash and burn through the education budget and call herself some sort of champion of the people.
And it will probably work, because she has money, and these days the one with the money rules, right? Right?
As for this pathetic attempt, TV stations shouldn’t be bullied by flimsy claims. If Meg Whitman doesn’t like the truth, how about she explain what she means. For real this time, not the blather we’ve heard before.
Meg Whitman has made it abundantly clear that her campaign is tightly focused on a few key area – one of them being jobs and the economy. There is no doubt that AB 32 is a job-killer. Whether she is the next Governor of California or not, our state will be better positioned to come out of this recession is AB 32 is mothballed until the economy is humming – which will likely take a lot longer than the next Governor’s ability to temporarily suspend AB 32’s draconian regulations for just a year.
First, I welcome this. I think campaigns should be about ideas. And in this case, Jerry Brown is strongly opposing Prop 23. Meg Whitman, well, like all other areas, she’s nowhere to be seen. Instead, she airs another million of TV and pretends that she is owed something. Let’s have a real debate, and see Whitman take a strong position one way or the other.
Of course, this being a conservative discussion, you have to toss in some willful ignorance to have a real party. Besides the throwaway use of “Democrat Party”, (I get it, very cute, Jon.) you have a heaping helping of climate denial:
There is certainly a vibrant debate taking place in the scientific community about whether or not changing temperature around the globe are tied to actions of people on the planet, or possibly part of a large, epic cycle of atmospheric change that is naturally caused.
To that, well, the quick response is no, there isn’t a vibrant debate. Ignorance does not make a debate vibrant. Study after study after study show that humans are contributing to climate change, trying to come up with some false dichotomy only distracts us from finding long-term solutions.
Whitman has been skating along on her vagueness for too long. Whichever way she chooses to come down on Prop 23, she should give the voters a sense of who she really is. As of right now, all we have is a few snippets from 30 second spots.
