Important Breaking News – Meg Whitman Opposes Prop 23

by Jack Lee

Meg Whitman- R come out against prop 23. This is the save our jobs initiative sponsored by Assemblyman Dan Logue-R. Both Jerry Brown and Whitman oppose Logue’s job saving initiative.

Whitman opposes Logue’s initiative, but campaigns like this, “I want great environmental standards in California but we cannot continue to lose jobs to neighboring states because we have the fourth highest unemployment rate in the country,” she says, noting that “2.2 million Californians are out of work. Let’s take a pause to make sure we understand the situation in which we find ourselves which is far more dire than when the bill was started..”


This act of treachery has done it for me. I have been holding back somewhat on Whitman up till now out of respect for the wishes of party. But, if this truth were known, I have opposed Meg Whitman from day one because she is at best a republican in name only and this gets us nowhere.

Whitman is a flake, she has zero political experience and what is almost unimaginable for a candidate for governor, she has avoided voting most of her adult life. That’s just pathetic, look what this vets group had to say recently, “Voting is a very sacred thing for us,” said Mark Starr, an Army veteran of the Gulf War and Iraq. “Some of us have seen comrades killed in action. I seriously question Ms. Whitman as to why it took her 20 years to register to vote in California.”

“I’ve been very straight up that my voting record isn’t perfect,” Whitman told the FOX Business Network’s Neil Cavuto, “I did not consistently vote,” she said. “Like many Americans, I’ve missed too many elections..” So who was the last president for whom she voted? “I voted in the 1984 election in California,” she replied. “I remember it very clearly.” And the last president? “George Bush (the first)… and John McCain, obviously.”

How can republicans in good conscience support this woman? Are we that partisan we are willing to vote for anyone with an R behind their name? If we’re not willing to draw the line on a person like Whitman, where do we draw the line?

Meg Whitman thinks she is qualified by virtue of her billions. She thinks Californian’s will allow her to buy the state’s top office so she can have a new hobby, well that’s not good enough for me, how about you? Whitman claims her great eBay leadership will do for California what she did for eBay. Do you know the eBay story? She rode the gravey train, being in the right place at the right time and that made her a success, not her decision making. The Bay Citizen reports, “There are three things Meg Whitman doesn’t discuss much on the campaign trail: 2005, 2006 and 2007. Those were Whitman’s last full years as CEO of eBay. Over that period, eBay’s stock price was cut in half, a loss of $30 billion in market value, as investors reacted to a string of troubled acquisitions initiated by Whitman and the prospect that Google or others might up-end the online auction business.

Since she departed eBay they have reversed almost all of her big ideas because they flopped! So don’t rely on her business leadership – she was not a wonderful CEO.

Whitman has been deceptive in this election on important issues like immigration. She opposed Arizona’s efforts to restrain illegal immigration while talking tough about border control. She bought billboards in SoCal advertising in Spanish that she was against Arizona and California’s old illegal immigration initiative that was overturned. This never appeared on her official campaign website. This tells me she can’t be trusted, she’s playing both sides for votes and we have no idea where her core values are!

Why elect a RINO to run this state? It won’t gain republicans any credibility and it won’t do one thing to stop the tax and spend democrats. Better we hold firm to our core values and disassociate ourselves from republicans like her. She does not share our ideas or idealism.

We will earn credibility and trust with the voters when we start drawing a line where we stand or fall based on our ethics and idealism. That takes courage and this is what the Tea Party has been trying to tell us. It’s time for the GOP to grow some backbone!

I say, let the democrats continue to sink this ship of state with a democrat governor at the helm and the people will have no choice but to turn to republicans for rescue. And we better be ready when they do! We can’t be ready if we have a weak republican in our states highest office. Since Meg Whitman is running like a democrat, I say lets take down her posters at the GOP headquarters and give them to the democrats. She wants to be a democrat, let her campaign with them. What a courageous act of defiance this would be – think about it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Important Breaking News – Meg Whitman Opposes Prop 23

  1. Tina says:

    Politics…it’s not a game for sissies!

  2. Mark says:

    Meg has said she would invoke the one year suspension that is built into AB 32.

    What, you did not know there an economic escape clause in AB 32? Dan Logue did not tell you about it? Figures.

    Yes, there is a clause in AB 32 to allow the governor to suspend AB 32 for a year, in response to an economic disaster. Arnold has decided the legislation, the new direction, are too important to suspend, even in this economic climate.

    Meg is on record as saying she would invoke the suspension clause if elected.

  3. Soaps says:

    Too bad that California has the proverbial Hobson’s choice. As for Whitman not voting, that is nothing to be ashamed of. In the last Presidential election, I could not bring myself to vote for McCain, the Arizona RINO. Of course, I did not vote for Obama either. Sometimes, abstention is not apathy.

  4. juanita says:

    “I say, let the democrats continue to sink this ship of state with a democrat governor at the helm and the people will have no choice but to turn to republicans for rescue.”

    Hey, speak for yourself. I guess you must have a good position on the crow’s nest, me and my family are in the hold, and we’re already treading water.

    I’m sick and tired of being bounced back and forth between two sets of zealots – the “save the Earth” crowd and the “screw the Earth” crowd. I’m ready for a rational moderate, and that’s Meg Whitman.

  5. Post Scripts says:

    Juanita I hear what you’re saying, however I would disagree on one point. We’ve actually been bounced back and forth between liberals and moderate republicans, not true conservatives and there is a big difference. Now if you are up to it I have some rambling to do! lol

    Here are some random thoughts, in no particular order of importance, that just popped to mind:

    True conservatives are neither fanatics nor zealots. They are honest, ethical, people who have a well defined set of values and they get things done, its not just lip service.

    A real conservative government would mean downsizing government to provide us with more freedoms and more choices to chart our own way. It would mean gov.living within its means and with on time budgets.

    A real conservative government would mean finally reforming the IRS so anyone could pay their fair share of taxes on a one page form.

    Real conservatives would remove the incentive for illegal workers to come here, thus fixing the borders from invasion.

    Real conservatives would make it so harsh for drug dealers and other major criminals that in 10 years many of them would have ceased breathing!
    There would be virtually no crime problem. A huge problem would finally be solved with the final solution! I would be happy to buy the bullets to lay to rest each big time offender! lol

    No more wasteful, namby pamby half measures – sock it to em!

    Those jobs that illegals once held would be given to US citizens. We would kick off able bodied people off welfare and they would be thrilled to get them, because it beats starving. Church charities would be thriving. This part would probably take a couple of generations to sort out because we have to re- teach the people how to work and fend for themselves once again – thanks to dems.

    People are much happier when they are contributing and working. Less time for crime too.

    In a real conservative government you would see death row cleaned out almost overnight. Prison crowding would not be a problem. Prison filling would be because we would have so many empty cells we would have to find other uses for them. Grain silos, storage bins for rent, etc.?

    A real conservative government would mean very little of your tax money would leave this country and when it did it would be justified. It would be free of fraud or else those who crossed us would wind up sharing the same fate as our major criminals.

    A real conservative government would mean the USA would be energy independent without damaging the environment. It can be done too.

    And this list of good ideas just keeps coming to me, but I better stop! lol I bet you would love living in a conservative America. It would be safe, strong and progressive. It would the closest thing to heaven on earth you could find. For criminals it would be more like Hell on earth…oh well, too bad. ; ) (Gee I feel better for having wrote all that! lol )

    Bottom line: We could be reaching new levels of greatness with true blue conservatives, that I have no doubt. Okay…I admit, It would never be as tough as I have described above I know that too well. I was just having some fun thinking how nice it would be!

  6. Tina says:

    Juanita given the number of environmental laws already on the books you can hardly say that the so-called “screw the earth” crowd has not been willing to make concessions and even support legislation to clean up and preserve the environment. The save the earth crowd has no such grace when it comes to preserving the things that create a vibrant economy and good jobs.

    Let’s get real! We are not caught between two zealous crowds of hard a***es duking it out. We are all being pushed, and pushed hard, by a very determined green bunch. The leadership and creators of this global push are all heavily invested in green industry and trading houses. They have positioned themselves to get very very rich, not through hard work and honest competition in a free market but by hook and crook in a game they will have rigged. They have been caught hyping the dangers using cute animals and catastophic images to tug at the heart strings and fears of those who they think “can’t understand” the science. They have falsified findings and worked with legislators to create draconian regulation that will kill industry (the chosen targeted evil).

    No one wants to see our water supply, rivers, and streams or our air polluted. We are willing, and have been willing, to pay for reasonable technologies and measures (based on sound science) to make sure our environment is preserved for ourselves and future generations. Those of us that still have a measure of common sense and a strong sense of other human needs (jobs, food, shelter) realize that a sustainable future must include solutions that support these needs as well. Our green friends don’t bother to think much about that.

    This is, as they say, the silly season and politics definitely is not for sissies.

    Our founders gave us a system of checks and balances. On top of that we have human failing, differing opinion, and unexpected conditions and events. No candidate is going to be perfect and no candidate will be able to wave a magic wand to get the things done we would all like. We set ourselves up for great disappointment and greater disaster when we don’t keep these things in mind as we cast our votes.

    Meg Whitman is not the perfect candidate. Jerry Brown was a terrible governor last time around and would support so many things that would further sink our state economically. Although I get Jacks frustration, and game plan, I fear a vote for Brown (which even abstention provides) will sink my family, your family, and the great state of California for good. The teachers and state workers have not felt the pinch…but it’s comin and they will soon know if we don’t change course NOW!

  7. Pie Guevara says:

    Yep, were are on the same page PS. But Jerry Brown???

    Here we go again, I am forced to vote against a candidate rather than for one. I have been voting for over 30 years and frankly, I am fed up with being put in this position.

    I may well sit this one out. I sat out voting for Schwarzenegger, both times. If Grey Davis had continued, we might have had a serious revolution in this state by now. The misery would already be over.

    Maybe what we need is four years of further economic ruin and disaster that Brown will bring for people to have had enough of this lunacy. Texas is looking good.

  8. Post Scripts says:

    Pie, as Bill C. once said, “I feel your pain!” I may not cast a vote for governor either. I am taking a stand like you and Soaps. If it violates our ethics then we don’t cast a vote. I wish there was a way to cast a NONE OF THE ABOVE votes. That way if the nays exceeded the yeas we would not elect anyone – they would have to come up with better candidates. It would serve em right too.

    Meg Whitman has fooled a lot of people using profession campaign consultants and hot button issues to woo voters. In reality she’s a complete novice who rarely even bothered to vote, she a person that by her qualifications alone probably shouldn’t be elected to county supervisor, let alone governor of this massive state.

    How voters can be so easily fooled is distressing. They don’t understand how clever images and issues are crafted. A good team of consultants could make almost anyone look like a hero. But, she’s no hero, she’s just clever rich woman who previously could have cared less about good government. She’s out to merely increase her personal status and wealth.

  9. Toby says:

    Why is it that voting in California is like having to choose between shooting yourself in the head or the foot? This sh*t is getting old.

  10. Mark says:

    “she’s just clever rich woman who previously could have cared less about good government. She’s out to merely increase her personal status and wealth.”

    I was expecting Tina to comment, but she isn’t, so I will.

    Why the class hatred?

    : )

  11. Tina says:

    Nice question, Mark…a tip of the hat to you! I’ve been busy debating a guy about wealth creators ;D

  12. Post Scripts says:

    Yes Mark, tis true. I did that because I don’t like people trying to buy elections, evenb though the Supreme Court says its her freedom of speech at work. I never believed that argument. Money is not free speech. It has the potential to deprive us free speech by overwhleming elections. It’s her wealth that allows her to get away with what she’s doing and I have a problem with that and money being such a heavy influence on election outcome at any level of government…but especially higher office. Doesn’t seem fair.

    Open question to our readers: Do you seriously believe that any person of modest means would be electable running on Meg Whitman’s political experience?

    Nah, if it were not for her mega-million she would not be in this race, she’s a very poor candidate, a rank amature, a political novice, with nothing to give her any political credibility …we might as well be electing a community organizer!

  13. Tina says:

    Jack I realize you have considerations about Meg Whitman and I won’t try to dissuade you. I’m a little confused by this statement:

    “…she’s a very poor candidate, a rank amature, a political novice, with nothing to give her any political credibility …we might as well be electing a community organizer!”

    I thought you were interested in electing people who are not professional politico’s and who know something about business?

    Her business experience and track record is far from shallow or amateurish and her resume isn’t restricted to the ebay years of troubles and wrong decisions (something many CEO’s backgrounds would contain). In fact she worked quite successfully at several big companies and started at ebay because of her reputation when the company was still operating on card tables. A “rank amateur” doesn’t take a small start-up and make it into a multimillion dollar fortune 500 company without some savy and she doesn’t do it without breaking a few eggs along the way.

    I know you hate money in politics but it does take money to generate the kind of interest and following needed to win the governorship of a big state like California. It may not be fair but it’s true. She was a relative unknown to the average voter. She made a plan (and paid for it herself) to give herself name recognition. This may be the number one goal of anyone who is serious about running for public office. People can’t vote for you if they don’t know who you are. She knew her competition would likely be well known. She started early and created a positive image as a Republican and conservative…now she must campaign and win. If she wins, she must perform in one of the most hostile environments imaginable as Awnuld found out. I give her a better shot than most but as we have seen the task is daunting. I figure we’ll be fortunate indeed if anything at all positive can be done to reverse the mess in this state. As far as I’m concerned we are already at the bottom and if Brown is elected that seals the socialist green deal for Caklifornia…there are no voters interested in turning to conservatives…they wiill have exactly what they want.

    I think if Brown gets this we are toast! Turn out the lights and don’t let the door hit your backside on the way out. ( I’m having trouble believing you are ready to elect Brown…OMG!) Not only is he a CO but a Bay Area nut and flake besides!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.