Tag Archives: Meg Whitman

Brown Takes Lead as GOP Bloodbath Takes Toll

Remember 2006? When Steve Westly and his consultants spent the last few months of the campaign beating up on Phil Angelides? Well, turns out that we are getting the same thing this year from the Republicans. All that back and forth is doing us some good. In a new poll, public policy polling shows some better numbers for AG Jerry Brown:

The big winner from the Republican primary for Governor in California? It might be Jerry Brown. The likely Democratic nominee, benefiting from bad feelings between Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner, has commanding double digit leads over both of them.

Brown is up 48-36 on Whitman and 48-32 on Poizner. There are almost no races in the country this year where Democratic voters are more unified than the Republicans- in almost every case there are more Democrats voting for GOP candidates than vice versa. That’s not the case in California though where Brown takes 79% of the Democratic vote to Whitman’s 72% of the Republican vote and 78% of the Democratic vote to Poizner’s 67% of the Republican vote. Brown is bucking another overwhelming national trend by leading both of the GOP contenders with independents. (Public Policy Polling)

I’m looking for more of the Vulture ad from Poizner. I just can’t get enough of that mystery meat they are eating.

Meg Whitman’s Mixed Bag

Meg Whitman talks a lot about her business acumen. She helped sculpt eBay after all.  But, if you are to really look at her record, there’s a lot to complain about.  

Take eBay itself. Yes, it grew while she was CEO.  But her career was hardly without mistakes there. Take the whole Skype affair. She purchased Skype for 3.1 billion dollars, and then had to write off 900 million of that less than two years later. Since eMeg left, they’ve sold most of Skype for $1.9 billion.  Sounds like somebody has been taking business lessons from one Arnold Schwarzenegger’s School of Stupid.

But, go back past eBay, and her record is not all that stellar either.  She quit as a failure from her CEO gig at FTD.

after two disappointing years struggling to turn a profit…. ‘This company is not fixable, at least not by me,’ Whitman told FTD Chairman Richard Perry… (SacBee)

Furthermore, Whitman’s FTD settled an anti-trust case that acknowledged that FTD was essentially muscling competitors out of the market. Not only did she violate the law, she did so knowingly, as FTD was already under a consent decree to not engage in precisely the kinds of activities that she repeated.

Oh, and lest you think that was her only shadiness at FTD, she also did a good ol’ fashioned purge of the “stodgy” (read: old) executives. She eventually settled litigation for age discrimination.

The fact is that Whitman can’t even run FTD with respect for the law, why do we think that she can handle the world’s eight largest economy?

Whitman Nabs Endorsement From an Undisclosed Location

From deep in his lair private residence, former Vice President Dick Cheney has surfaced to endorse Meg Whitman for California Governor.  And he did it in the OC Register, giving the typical endorsement pablum:

Meg is a leader who will not shy away from confronting the public employee unions. She has put pension reform at the center of her agenda. She is a firm believer in the power of tax cuts to strengthen small businesses and create jobs. She knows that welfare must be a temporary hand-up and not a way of life. She is committed to local control of education, and she has a strong and practical approach to securing the border and addressing the problems associated with illegal immigration.

But Darth Cheney is never quite so simple, he’s going to make this endorsement something noteworthy.  How so? By making it about Whitman’s support for the Iraq War, which Poizner opposed in 2004.

While I am always mindful of President Reagan’s 11th Commandment, there are issues of judgment that voters should consider before they cast their ballots in the Republican primary. … But I have concerns about whether he truly adheres to the conservative principles of our party. … In 2004, during the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign, Mr. Poizner, who was then a candidate for the state Assembly, opposed the tax cuts that were the centerpiece of our economic recovery plan.

He also broke ranks with our party on national security and the “war on terror.” Mr. Poizner opposed the war in Iraq. To amplify his opposition to the national security policies of the Bush administration, he invited Richard Clarke to campaign for him in California.

I’m sure Cheney vetted this one with Whitman’s camp. That being said, this is one risky move for somebody who considers herself a lock for the GOP nomination.  Cheney is not popular in California.  The Iraq War is certainly not popular in California.

Credit where credit is due. Poizner did speak against the Iraq War in 2004. And he was right.  But, that won’t help in the GOP nomination battle royale.  This race is far from over folks.

Whitman Can’t Buy Her Way Out of the Goldman Sachs Charges

There was a lot of interesting comments at the GOP debate for governor. A lot of crazy on immigration issues and a lot of magical thinking on budgetary issues.  But that’s for a different discussion. The exchange, and the charge, that is working right now against Meg Whitman is simple. She is a profiteer who put her own personal fortune over the best interests of her company and its shareholders.

I’ll let Steve Poizner break it down for you:

Everytime this clip, or Poizner’s ad, is played, you can practically hear voters turning away from MoneyBags Whitman. She is part of a kleptocracy that thinks they can have what they want, when they want it. They are entitled, and Whitman thinks she’s entitled to the governor gig.  Her staff practically said as much when they demanded that Poizner drop out of the race.

Frankly, I have no favorites in the GOP primary, they are both far too conservative, and would move the state in the wrong direction.  And it is really hard to tell which one is more out of touch with Californians. Could it be the Goldman Sachs billionaire or the man who thought $450,000 homes were the “wrong side of the tracks?”  

It’s a tough call.

Why I’ll Be a Better Governor for California than Jerry Brown

Note from Robert Cruickshank – Calitics has a policy of promoting diaries from electeds and candidates to the front page when the diaries are topical, important, or provide valuable information to our readers, and this one certainly counts as all three. However, this should not be construed as an endorsement of Peter Schurman.

Cross-posted at Huffington Post and at Daily Kos.

On June 8th, Californians will choose our party nominees for Governor.  I’m running as a progressive challenger to Jerry Brown in the Democratic primary.

For nearly twenty years, I’ve been a bare-knuckled fighter for regular people and common-sense, progressive values. I was the Founding Executive Director at MoveOn.org, America’s strongest progressive advocacy organization. Although I’ve never run for elected office, I am qualified to be Governor and here’s why I’ll do a better job for California than Jerry Brown.

California needs a fighter right now.  Six-plus years of Republican rule have left our state in crisis.  We need a leader committed to aggressively confronting and cleaning up the mess the Republicans have made, not someone who wants to split the difference.

Here are three of the biggest challenges facing California.  As our party’s front-runner, Jerry Brown should be facing these issues head-on.  Instead, he’s running away from them.

* Money: California, the golden state, has a larger economy than all but 7 countries — yet our government is broke, and regular people are struggling to make ends meet.  Every day we hear another story of budget cuts to vital state programs.  The human costs of these cuts include schools cramming almost 40 of our children into single classrooms, domestic violence shelters closing, massive tuition hikes at our public colleges, and thousands of layoffs from our Healthy Families program.  Why are we letting this happen?  

We have a choice.  Instead of rolling over and accepting these cuts, we can raise the $19 billion we need to turn our beautiful state around.  We can do it mainly by making the oil companies, the big commercial property owners, the corporations, and the richest people pay their fair share — which none of them are doing today.  We can also legalize and tax marijuana, tax services like lawyers as we do physical goods, and end incentive programs that aren’t working.  On my website, I’ve laid out a specific plan to raise the $19 billion it will take to close our ongoing budget deficit and stop the cuts, so we can start taking care of our children instead of the oil companies and real-estate tycoons.

I will do this without raising the burden on struggling Californians.  In fact, I’ll make things easier for people in the lowest income bracket, because right now they’re paying a bigger share of their income than anyone else, and I’ll change that by making the big guys start pulling their weight.

Budget cuts and the $19 billion deficit driving them are arguably the most serious problems facing our state.  What’s Jerry Brown’s answer?  He has none.  He says only that he won’t raise taxes.  He may think that’s smart politics, but it’s not the kind of leadership we need.

* Democracy: You might think we have a democracy in Sacramento, where we settle our differences by majority vote.  In fact, we don’t.  Instead, Sacramento has a 2/3 rule that gives the Republican minority the power to hold our state’s finances hostage, even though we elect solid majorities of Democrats to represent us.  Republicans exploit this power ruthlessly, preventing us from raising the revenues we need, because their Wall Street backers don’t want to pay their fair share.  It’s one of the biggest reasons our state’s in such a deep hole.

We’ve got to end the 2/3 rule and get the Republican boot off our neck.  There’s just no way around it.

You’d think Jerry Brown would agree.  But, incredibly, he’s taken steps this spring to sabotage the campaign to end the 2/3 rule.  As Attorney General, he changed the wording of an important ballot initiative in a way that scares people away from standing up for our rights.

I support ending the 2/3 rule, and so do 70% of Californians.  But Jerry Brown is carrying water for the Republicans, not fighting for us.

* Health Care: Our health care system is a mess.  The problem is the health insurance companies.  They are parasites, sucking up massive sums of money, and giving us paperwork, rate hikes, and denials of coverage in return.  Although President Obama’s new health care law reins in some of their worst abuses, it also perpetuates the problem, by forcing us to buy their inadequate product, and offering no other option.

A better answer is “Medicare for All”, also known as single-payer health care, the most robust form of the “public option” that Californians asked for.  It’s simple and elegant: by getting the insurance companies out of the way, we get better care, and we save tons of money.  

With Medicare for All, the average California family will save more than $300.- per year.  Employers who insure their workers will save almost $800 per employee per year — freeing that money up to hire more people.  California as a whole will save $8 billion in the first year, and $343 billion over ten years.

The California Senate has passed our Medicare for All bill, SB 810 (sponsored by Senator Mark Leno).  The state assembly has passed similar legislation in recent years.  I’m committed to signing it if I’m elected Governor.  Sadly, Jerry Brown refuses to make the same commitment.

—–

California needs a leader we can count on: one whose values are clear, and who fights for us reliably.  I love this state, and I’m fighting for it with everything I’ve got.

But with all of Jerry Brown’s experience, if he’s not willing to stand up and fight for us, what makes me think I can?

Take a look at my track record:

   * Stopping President Bush: As MoveOn’s Executive Director, I ran the campaign that defeated President Bush for the very first time after 9-11, when the U.S. Senate rejected his choices for judges on America’s top courts.  

   * Stopping President Bush again: Working closely with Hill leaders including Rep. Henry Waxman, I led MoveOn’s campaign that defeated President Bush’s 2004 budget in the House, despite Republican control there.

   * Protecting our Climate: I organized most of the grassroots support to pass California’s car emissions law, AB 1493, which was the basis for President Obama’s excellent new nationwide clean-car rules.

   * Getting Corporate Money out of our Democracy: I also organized the bulk of the grassroots support to pass the McCain-Feingold law, banning corporate “soft money” from our political system.

   * Protecting People from Air Pollution: Working for the American Lung Association, I persuaded several states to release their air pollution data in real time, so people with asthma can plan their days in safety.

   * Protecting the California Desert: At the Sierra Club, I helped secure crucial final votes to pass the California Desert Protection Act, the only major pro-environment law passed in the Clinton Administration.

   * Helping Eliminate the U.S. Budget Deficit: I helped run a young people’s campaign in 1992 that put deficit reduction on the front of the national agenda, helping spur President Clinton to balance the budget.

These are just a few examples of the difference I’ve made fighting for progressive values since the early 1990s.  My background, defeating Republican power and moving a positive agenda in the face of an entrenched opposition, is exactly the kind of leadership experience we need in our next Governor.

Governing California will require management chops too.  I have an M.B.A. from Yale, and my management skill is reflected in the enduring strength of organizations I’ve built:

   * As MoveOn.org’s Founding Executive Director (2001-2005), I grew the organization from 350,000 to to 3 million members, and grew its budget from $81,000 to $6.5 million.  I built a solid team, paid them competitive salaries, kept the books in order, and led MoveOn’s millions of members in winning several game-changing victories over the Bush administration.

   * As the Sierra Club’s first National Student Organizer, in the mid-1990s, I secured permanent funding for the Sierra Student Coalition, recruited and trained a corps of skilled student campaign leaders, and created new ways to engage 30,000 students in campaigns like protecting millions of acres of the Mojave Desert as wilderness.

My values are clear and consistent, and I’ve fought for them reliably over nearly twenty years.

I don’t owe favors to anyone, because I’ve always fought for the public interest, against the corporations, and I’ve never taken big money from any industry.  Can Jerry Brown say the same thing?

Does Jerry Brown have what it takes to fight for us?

Let’s look at one more major example: California’s climate-change action plan, known as AB 32.  AB 32 is state law, democratically passed and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger.  But Meg Whitman is promising that if she’s elected, her first move will be to undo it.  She’s working for Texas oil companies, not California’s people.

What does Jerry Brown have to say about this?  He mounts a tepid defense of AB 32, saying he sees room for “adjustments.”

Here’s what I say about it:

Meg Whitman’s assault on AB 32 is utterly insane.  Undoing AB 32 not only threatens our survival, but it cuts the floorboards out from under our emerging clean-tech economy.  Building the new green economy will require investment, and investors need stability, not see-sawing.  Whitman is putting California at risk of blowing the greatest economic opportunity of this decade: green jobs.  Her attack on AB 32 is like going back 30 years and saying we shouldn’t develop the Internet.  Where would eBay be today?

This is the kind of vigorous fight against Meg Whitman and the Republicans that California needs.

With Whitman promising to spend at least $150 million from her Goldman Sachs bank account, Democrats need a candidate we can get excited about, one who can inspire the votes we’ll need to win in November.

Jerry Brown has a long record of service to our state.  But today, he’s not taking the leadership stands we need.  Is it any wonder that, according to a recent poll, 41 percent of people under 40 have no opinion of him?

We can do better.

I have the skills, the values, and the experience to lead our state successfully through the challenges we face today.  I’ve won major victories on behalf of regular people and common-sense values, and I’ve built powerful, enduring organizations.

Vote for progress on June 8th — or as early as next week, if you vote by mail.  Join my campaign for California’s future on Facebook, on Twitter, and at http://Peter4Gov.org.  Thank you.

The Stage is Set: AB 32 Goes to the Ballot

Today, the oil companies behind the plan to repeal AB 32, our landmark climate change legislation, will submit their signatures to the Secretary of State.

California voters will decide the fate of the state’s landmark global-warming bill in the November election after a big-bucks battle that may break records for political spending on an initiative.

Today, a group heavily backed by Texas oil giants Tesoro Corp. and Valero Energy Corp. plans to submit signatures for an initiative seeking to suspend AB32 until California’s unemployment rate improves dramatically. … AB32’s proponents call it a vital step in efforts to curb greenhouse gases and create green jobs. And with federal climate-change regulations stalled in Congress, the California law takes on added significance as a potential model for other states. (SF Chronicle)

Of course, the oil companies say that it “hurts jobs” without a whole lot of evidence. Of course, to the contrary, California stands as the world’s leader in clean tech. We stand an amazing opportunity to build upon that success. However, if we take a step backward, investors will shy away from the state when we are able to move forward in the future.

Look, at a time when we are facing an unprecedented environmental catastrophe, we just can’t be moving in the wrong direction.  And Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner as well as nearly every statewide candidate have all taken positions favoring repeal. I think Chuck DeVore is personally emitting extra hot air just to piss off the environment, which, according to DeVore is his to exploit.  

But, other statewide candidates seem to want to avoid the subject. Funny how some like to play every side of the issue.

CA-GOV: It’s On Like Donkey Kong

Today is the second, and likely last, debate in the GOP Gubernatorial primary, and for Steve Poizner, this is his last best chance at scoring a knockout punch to the MegMachine:

After months of being bludgeoned by billionaire Meg Whitman in a one-way campaign, the former Silicon Valley entrepreneur is finally showing signs of life. And today, he again goes head to head against the former eBay CEO in the final scheduled debate before the June 8 primary.

Live from San Jose.

“It’s his last chance,” said Bill Whalen, chief speechwriter for former Gov. Pete Wilson.

“Poizner’s strategy has always been, ‘Don’t fire until you see the whites of her eyes,’ ” said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “Well, here she is.”

Even when the largely self-funded candidate was 50 percentage points down in the polls – refusing to spend much of his bulging war chest – Poizner had a “what, me worry?” confidence. But in recent weeks, the underdog has unleashed his own torrent of ads, spending about $2 million a week to introduce himself to voters and join Democratic groups in bashing the free-spending Whitman. (SJ merc)

Poizner who has finally gone to the airwaves to combat Whitman’s months-long siege of the state of California’s ears and eyes must now hope that his very effective ads hit the mark and make enough of an impression before the ballots drop in a week or two. But while few will watch this debate live, many will see a few take-away points around the web and on TV.  Poizner needs to bust out with some notable sound bites on Whitman’s background with Goldman Sachs as well as tossing some meat to the right-wing base.

You can watch live on CalChannel on the tube or online. In the Bay Area, it will be on KTVU-2 at 5 pm, as well as statewide on the Comcast “hometown” channel. (repeated ad nauseum, I’m sure). If you want to catch it sans smirks and harsh looks, it will be on KQED and public radio affiliates throughout the state.

Desperate Whitman Reaches for Ridiculous Charges

If you didn’t see the new Poizner ad about Whitman and Goldman Sachs, go check it out right below this post.  You’ll know why Whitman is trying anything to get the glare off of her.  So much so that she will happily make up meaningless charges.

Her latest attack? That Jerry Brown got Oakland into a bad interest rate deal with Goldman Sachs. Except…the deal happened a year BEFORE Brown was in office:

The deal between Oakland and Goldman Sachs – a so-called “interest rate swap” intended to create stability in repaying some of its debts that’s now costing the city $5 million a year – occurred a year before Brown was in office and was a common practice for municipalities around the country to finance bond debts. …

Whitman said Brown showed a “failure of leadership” for failing to pull Oakland out of the deal, though Sterling Clifford, his spokesman, said that Brown had no vote on the issue and no veto power over a decision made by the City Council. Brown also served as president of the Joint Power Financing Authority, which negotiated the restructuring of the interest rate swap, though he had no voting power there, either.

Joe Yew, treasurer for Oakland, said canceling the deal would have cost the city $15 million to $20 million in termination fees.(MediaNews)

Now, I’ve heard once, or a million times, that Meg Whitman is a “business woman with common sense.” So, Ms. Whitman, let’s see if all that fancy business training says about this deal: would you have paid $15 million to cancel a deal that may (or may not) cost the city about $5 million?  A cheat sheet for you, that’s a $10 million loss right there.

But never you mind about that, because there’s a “failure of leadership” there. Not one that Jerry Brown had anything whatsoever to do with, but Whitman has to find something to deflect the glare from her dismal record with Goldman. Basically what she’s alleging is that he made a bad business deal. Of course, it wasn’t Brown at all, but I’m not sure if Whitman really wants to talk about bad business deals.  Tough luck for her, because she’s made many of them.  Take Skype:

Don’t call it a bust just yet, but it’s fair to say eBay executives aren’t thrilled with what they’re getting out of Skype, which the auction king bought for $2.6 billion two years ago.

On Monday, eBay said it would take a $900 million so-called impairment write-down against the value of Skype. This means that eBay has been forced to reassess the value of the Internet telephony company relative to its overall business today. By recording a charge, the company is essentially saying that it has taken a loss on its original investment.(Cnet)

Yeah, that’s right. Whitman was the one who made the ultimate decision to buy Skype for $2.6 Billion.  So, if they are going to point to a standard operating procedure deal with the City of Oakland for $5 million, what are they going to say about a deal that cost her company almost a billion dollars? Does that maker her 200 times more dangerous as the governor?  

But this is all about throwing stuff up at the wall and seeing what will stick.

So far no evidence of conflict has arisen between Brown and his sister. But Whitman continued to assert that because Brown hadn’t addressed the issue himself, there were unanswered questions over his relationship with Goldman Sachs.

“At least you have to explain what happened. As far as I know, he has been completely mum on this subject,” she told The Associated Press. (MediaNews)

Whenever you see that whole “it must be true because he hasn’t denied it” bull you know a candidate is desperate.  So, why doesn’t she address the rumors that I heard about her:

  • Meg Whitman is a sociopath who may possibly have eaten live puppies in Tijuana.
  • Meg Whitman exploited children in vicious labor camps.
  • Meg Whitman raised two sons who were kicked out of many schools, clubs, and Princeton University for hurling racial epithets.
  • Except, wait, those last two really happened, so it probably would be nice for Whitman to try to explain that to the California electorate.  Asking Brown to explain the Goldman charge is no better than asking Whitman why she eats the puppies.

    So, let’s have more talk of Goldman Sachs, please. It’s getting to Team Whitman.

    This is the eMeg Ad We’ve Been Waiting For

    Ok, this is it. This is what we have been waiting for. The ad that hits at Meg Whitman, and ties her for all the world to see to Goldman Sachs.  And the ad comes courtesy of Steve Poizner.  

    At this point, I feel like I should be giving money to Poizner’s campaign to get this ad up on the TV as much as possible.

    See, the thing with Whitman is that there is just so much meat for an opposition researcher.  In addition to the Goldman Sachs stuff, there’s the child labor issue, her brilliant purchase of Skype (a nearly billion loss for eBay), and putting toxic glue in your kid’s Stride Rites.  Chris Kelly (no, not the AG candidate) went ahead and wrote your Meg Whitman bible.

    Go Poizner, go! You just have to love a bloody Republican primary between two uber-rich techies, don’t you?

    Meg-o-Mercial Doubles Down on AB 32

    Meg Whitman’s big infomercial wasn’t quite the prime time affair that President Obama’s was, but she did find time to lay out just how extreme she’s getting on issues of climate change.

    On the substance, the Whitman infomercial repeats many of her now tried-and-true campaign slogans (focus “on just three things” as governor, “100% against amnesty”). But there were a few nuggets that either sounded a bit different, or highlighted issues in a way that merit at least a mention.

    Whitman repeats her support of a one-year delay in implementing the state’s landmark global warming bill, AB 32. But rather than a more measured response, in the infomercial she flat out calls the law “a job killer.”(Capitol Notes)

    This might not seem all that big, but she is now attaching her banner solidly behind the repeal AB 32 side. The language is straight out of Valero’s talking points.

    And on her “cut 40,000 employees” talking point, John Myers does a little bit of fact-checking:

    On the now familiar Whitman criticism of too many workers employed by the state, the candidate takes a more firm stance about why these positions (40,000, she’s promised) can be eliminated. She tells the audience that this is the amount by which the state workforce has grown since 2004.

    “It’s not front line employees,” says the candidate. “It’s not the CHP, it’s not CalFire, it is the bureaucracy.”

    A bit more thorough reporting than can be done on a Sunday is required, but even a general review of state data online shows that Whitman’s “bureaucrats” must include employees of the state prison system – where the workforce has grown and costs have noticeably increased. There are now some 69,000 corrections employees (more than half are guards), and as the department’s own report states, 70% of the prisons budget comes from staff salaries and benefits.

    It’s really great when you can sort of spin a yarn and nobody calls you on it. Whitman wants to slash the “bureaucracy” by 40,000. Ok, so, how’s about we get a little more specific. Let’s see Whitman come up with 40,000 jobs that she would like to cut.

    Of course, she won’t actually do it, but her nonsensical and out of context call for the heads of state workers is both unproductive for the state and a simple act of scapegoating. But, we’ve come to expect both from Whitman, and this was her TV ad, after all.