0

Meg Whitman, Jerry Brown, or Someone Else?

Asked by Jane Belanger

September 29, 2010

Photo of Michael Flor

Michael Flor

From Rancho San Diego (Artist)

I don’t want Brown or Whitman, but I’ll have to go for her because Brown scares me. He’s just too old; he’s done it too long.

Photo of Brian Johnson

Brian Johnson

From Pacific Beach (Sales Rep)

Meg Whitman, absolutely. I like that she started from a small corporate company and built it into a huge company. I’d think she’d know how to manage people and budgets and things like that. The Browns and the other people that have been in politics...it’s just kind of the same-old same-old. She’s definitely getting my vote. She’s a super-wealthy woman, so that’s even more attractive [laughs]. I’m a Democrat, but I don’t vote for party lines; I just vote for the person I think represents what I believe in.

Photo of Jason Froehlich

Jason Froehlich

From Sacramento (Business Owner)

I’m voting for Meg Whitman, and the reason why is because she’s taken a very small business and grown it into a Fortune 500 company — and during a dot-com era, too. Everybody’s worried about her cutting jobs, but not necessarily is she going to cut important jobs. The ones that need to be cut need to be cut anyway. Our state needs help. It’s not that I don’t like Jerry; it’s that Jerry’s a career politician. Meg Whitman has performed. I don’t think Jerry Brown’s going to be able to lead this state out of the crisis that we’re in. I think he’s going to pull it down further, and it [would] be an economic disaster for California, for the nation, and then for the world.

Photo of Johnny Barner

Johnny Barner

From North Park (Unemployed)

I actually would like another candidate. I think they both suck pretty bad. His history’s not good overall, and I think she’s buying the campaign. Of either option, I would take him over her, but I wish there was a viable third option. I’m Democratic through my voting history, but I’m actually more independent. I always vote for whoever I think is the most qualified.

Photo of Daniel Garcia

Daniel Garcia

From College Area (Valet)

I know a little bit about Meg Whitman...she’s a Republican...eBay. But I don’t know...I’m probably not going to vote for her even though she’s going to win. I feel like she’s going to win because she’s got the biggest pull. I’m most likely going to vote for Jerry Brown.

Photo of Ella Wins

Ella Wins

From Little Italy (Sales Assistant)

California has been so screwed up, there’s no way it can go any way but up. So, I’m fine with whoever’s chosen. I am going to vote, but I haven’t decided who to vote for yet. I get the voter book and vote at home, so I don’t have the pressure of people looking at me. They’re going to judge you no matter what. I’m a mailer-voter person. I always do it on the very last day. I’m going to be reading and circling. It’s kind of like cheating on a test. I don’t care about the odds. I don’t care that that chick came from Google or wherever she came from.

Comments

Ponzi Sept. 30, 2010 @ 8:28 p.m.

Meg Whitman did not invent eBay. She did not build eBay. It was already subscribed to go public before she came on board. She just benefited from the “irrational exuberance” of the era of the dot-com bubble.

The devil you know may be better than the devil you don’t know. Even though I was a Republican for many years, I am voting for a politician, not someone who is spending unprecedented amounts of money for the trophy of political power.

Also, Brown may be old, but Meg is butt ugly.

0

Ponzi Sept. 30, 2010 @ 9:01 p.m.

Being a hypocrite just buried her campaign for good. You can’t say , in a televised debate, that “employers of illegal aliens should be severely punished" and then wake up the next morning with your ugly face plastered across the newspapers and TV saying you fired the illegal alien you employed for 9 years!

With people like these, with no critical thinking skills, at the voting booth.. God save us all.

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 30, 2010 @ 10:49 p.m.

I think both are a crap shoot.

And in the end, I don't think either one has what it takes to fix this mess.

Whitman wants pension reform, while exempting public safety-the BIGGEST costs by far in the pension system-does that mnake sense????? No.

Brown passed the Dills act in 1977 allowing collective bargaining for public employee unions- a legal monopoly - does that make sense?? No.

We are doomed.

0

Ponzi Oct. 1, 2010 @ 7:32 a.m.

SurfPuppy, says "And in the end, I don't think either one has what it takes to fix this mess."

I agree with that. But then who can fix the mess?

On another note, one of my parents worked for the State of California, and yes has a neat pension (though not crazy like today's). Brown used to fight with the CSEA and unions over pensions and benefits in the late 1970's. Believe me, he's no friend of the state workers during his rein. People are only hearing one side of the story, and many who talk $hit about his politics were not even born when he was in office.

Since he has become the Attorney General, his politics have changed too. He's no "moonbeam" anymore.

No matter. Meg in not going to be governor. People begin voting in about a week by mail. At 8:30 PM election night, it will be over for her and a big chunk of her children’s inheritance.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 2, 2010 @ 11:27 a.m.

Brown is what, 70?? 72???.....I agree that there is a very strong possibility he will not be the person/patsy the public unions think he will be if elected. In fact as a lame duck who is not going to be looking at ANY office after this election there is a good chance BROWN may be the one to fix the pension mess, not Whitman.

I know one thing, Whitman's plan for the pensions (we won't even go into pay scales) is NOT going to work when she is exempting the biggest absuers of the system-public safety.

You cannot have employees "retiring" at age 50, or 55, or even 60 with 90% of their highest years pay (which is near $100K) and then living another 20-30 or even 40 years, doesn't work and is unsustainable.

0

Founder Oct. 1, 2010 @ 10:22 a.m.

Meg's money will cost her the election...

I think the now "poorer" voting public is afraid of someone that doesn't need to work and already has everything except a "title"...

0

nan shartel Oct. 1, 2010 @ 2:18 p.m.

younger yes...but i think the Goldman Sachs situation tell more about Meg Whitman then she'd like to have told

is she one of the many financial rapers and pillagers of the great unwashed

maybe...........

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6260437n&tag=related;photovideo

i want someone else but if it comes down to it it's Brown i'll be voting for...he was very forward thinking in the past where technology and energy conservation was concerned and his "Governor Moonbeam" status for ridicule was eventually accepted and put into practice for a more perfect communication links via satellite for California...proving his idea was just before its time

isn't it sad for Califonia there aren't other better choices

oh BTB...old isn't necessarily bad

0

Ponzi Oct. 2, 2010 @ 9:05 a.m.

I know some people who worked in California under Jerry Brown Version 1.0, and they don’t love him. Painting him as “pro-union” is a false generality. He fought with unions and CSEA members. Those voting for him told me it they would still be pinching their noses.

This is basically a situation of having to decide if you want an experienced politician, who at least knows the system and has some contacts on both sides of the political divide, or bring in an accidental billionaire who NEVER voted for 28 years and let her play around with the state. Seriously, if Meg gets elected, this state will be in a stalemate for four years.

Meg’s attitude is there is nothing a checkbook can’t solve. The thing is California needs political savvy not power thirsty newbie’s. Jerry Brown has been there before, his agenda is entirely different than Meg’s.

Knowledge talks, wisdom listens. I'd like to see a lot less of Meg talking and more of what wisdom she feels she has on politics and running a state government.

0

Ponzi Oct. 2, 2010 @ 9:47 a.m.

It should be pointed out that even her old boss, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar refuses to endorse her.

The thing that frustrates me is that people think Margaret founded eBay. She did not. She was brought in, rather late in the game, by the venture capital people. They didn't want to put in "top rate talent" so they settled on Margaret. It was rather a pleasant surprise that eBay grow so much, but then again the business model that founder and owner of eBay, Mr. Omidyar, had created was a virtual business requiring few employees, no buildings or warehouses and no sales-force. The genius was Pierre Omidyar, not Margaret.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 2, 2010 @ 11:20 a.m.

RE: "Since the unions are what's breaking California, I'd say Brown would be pretty bad."

Make sure you qualify this as the PUBLIC unions, which are monopolies with no competition - and should be outlawed under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Private sector unions compete, and if they ask for or receive more than the market will accept they go out of business and no more private sector union.

I have no problems with private sector unions, but BIG problems with public sector unions.

0

Ponzi Oct. 3, 2010 @ 9:16 a.m.

A book could be written about what Meg Whitman doesn’t know about government, the public sector in general and most specifically, public education. But the fact is that she wants the governor’s office and is willing to buy, lie and pander to get it. Unfortunately for Ms. Whitman, the price seems to keep rising. Maybe it’s pressure from Jerry Brown, or perhaps just a desire overwhelm to Californians with media blitz, but whatever the case, billionaire Whitman upped the ante on Friday by adding another $13 million in personal funds to her campaign chest.

Whitman, who has said that she’s willing to spend up to $150 million to buy the top seat in California’s government, has invested $104 million to date. Still $5.2 million short of the self-funding record set by Michael Bloomberg, she is outspending her Democratic opponent at a dramatic rate. Although Jerry Brown has accumulated $24 million in campaign funds, his spending to date is a miserly $700,000.

Some in the Brown camp are concerned about his frugal ways, and believe that he should jump center ring and grapple in the Whitman-financed mud wrestling. Many Brown supporters are concerned that Whitman’s continuous half-truth and distortion based assault may cause irreversible damage. They cite instances like her present illegitimate attempt to associate Brown’s record as Oakland’s mayor with the pension and pay scandals in Bell, CA as evidence that she must be rebutted. They argue that Brown needs to respond to Whitman’s blatant distortions, like her treating as fact, claims made by a fired city controller that City of Oakland employees were paid for thousands of hours that were not worked.

Other Brown supporters find comfort in the fact that even Whitman’s own consultants know that, despite all the money they’re spending, she’s not making any real progress. They contend that there’s plenty of time to explain that crime did not increase in Oakland under Brown, or how the tax increases she blames on Brown were actually approved by 70% of voters. They argue that she may have oversaturated the media with her abundant ads, and that the prudent tack may well be to let her continue the negative campaigning. So, for now, the Brown campaign is waiting and watching Whitman spend her millions, all the while revealing herself as the out-of-touch, mudslinging, wealthy panderer she is.

0

Ponzi Oct. 3, 2010 @ 9:16 a.m.

Cont.

But just who Meg Whitman is may be a bit difficult to determine. She’s flip-flopped back and forth on offshore drilling, so her position likely depends on when it’s rendered. Her position on immigration is even more ephemeral, seeming to be tailored to whatever she thinks the current audience wants to hear: when interviewed on American Morning News this past July 28, Whitman stated that Arizona’s SB1070 should stand, but her Spanish language media ads that ran earlier said that she was opposed to the Arizona law.

The truth of the matter is that anyone who doesn’t question Whitman’s character must be either ignorant, in denial or as unscrupulous as she. And one does not have to look far for answers. Even at eBay, Whitman’s record was tarnished with claims of dishonesty, where she resigned her post there under charges of insider trading brought by her own shareholders. She denies the allegations, but admits to making money from “spinning” -- an activity since rendered explicitly illegal by the SEC. The suit brought by eBay shareholders was settled and along with the others charged, Whitman paid $3 million.

Meg Whitman has a plan for California, but voters need to beware that Meg does what benefits Meg. In large part, she stands for what California stands against and vice versa. She is strongly against Prop-19; she’s neutral on Prop-23, which is sponsored by two Texas Oil giants, but she supports a suspension of AB32, which would have a similar effect in lifting pollution standards. While at Goldman Sachs, she was even a big supporter of the huge bonuses for which Wall Street is now infamous.

In the final analysis, Meg Whitman is a billionaire, and she’s not likely to change her mega-wealthy patterns of behavior -- like hiding profits in the Cayman Islands -- just because she becomes Governor of California. She’s used to getting what she wants, and she wants to run this state. The trouble is that from the perspective of an average Californian, she’s likely to run it straight into the ground.

0

Founder Oct. 3, 2010 @ 10:01 a.m.

I'd suggest adding one additional word in your last sentence:

"The trouble is that from the perspective of an average Californian, she’s likely to run it straight into the ground FASTER.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 3, 2010 @ 12:05 p.m.

I agree, I think the two choices boil down to the better of two evils.

After the Arnold flop, I have my doubts as to whether an outsider can do the job. I think Arnold could have been a tremendous success IF he did not tuck tail and run from the public unions after hthey spanked him on his four ballot initatives in 2004. If he stuck to his guns those would be winning issues today- and he could have made big change and would have been viewed as a success instead of the failure most people think of him today.

0

Founder Oct. 4, 2010 @ 9 a.m.

Arnold "gutted" CA State Disability; and made "Protection" for workers into a mockery that today "kicks out" those that are injured while on the job!

Meg will use that as a model to reduce other program expenses throughout the State; and that will only benefit those with good jobs that do not need any State services...

California needs to rein in excess spending but do it in such a way that those at the lowest end of the "system" don't take the biggest hit, while those at the upper end are merely inconvenienced and continue to Party On...

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 4, 2010 @ 1:20 p.m.

You nailed it.

Do you ever wonder why gov does not make progessive cuts-starting with those who are at the top of the compensation scale making the most taking the biggest % of cuts, when budgets are out of sync???

Instead they cut parks, rec, pools, street cleaning and all the LOW PAID employees first-and often just them.

They do that intenionally of course.....

0

Ponzi Oct. 5, 2010 @ 5:03 a.m.

I agree SurfPuppy. I voted for the recall and Arnold. Although I feel he's not a failure and has done many good things, you're correct that he wilted in the face of the unions. I thought he would be a terminator and he turned out to be a droid.

0

Sign in to comment