Meg Whitman: Let the Best Woman Win!
February 15, 2010
by Kitt
|
Meg Whitman is running strong! The latest polls show her ahead of her Republican rival by 30 percentage points and about even with the presumptive Democratic candidate, Jerry Brown. Go Meg!
But it seems the good ol’ boys of the Democratic party are running scared and, in a state of desperation, are resorting to a cash and trash solution to take down the California Megawoman.
Three separate Democratic and pro-labor groups are poised to raise more than $40 million to start trashing GOP front-runner Meg Whitman.
Over the next week, the Democratic Governors Association and two other groups will pour an unprecedented wave of cash into a negative advertising campaign four months ahead of the June 8 primary.
These boys have created a loophole group with no campaign contribution limits complete with “opposition research specialists” and Democratic big guns from around the country.
One of the “independent expenditure” efforts is spending $20 million and is lead by none other than the former campaign manager for Jerry Brown, as well as a few other former top staffers from his campaign.
It’s called “Level the Playing Field 2010,” and it’s being put together by progressive unions and wealthy donors worried that Brown’s $12 million war chest is spare change next to Whitman’s mega-millions.
The idea is to allow Democrats to take on the largely self-funded Whitman without having to worry about the gubernatorial campaign contribution limits that are certain to put a lid on Brown’s own spending.
Tsk tsk boys! Can’t you win on issues and record? After all, Jerry Brown was California’s governor 1975-1983 and his father was governor from 1959-1967. Do you really have to resort negative campaigns and character assassinations? Is your $40 million dollar investment a sign that the gloves are coming off?
Let the best woman win!
Go Meg!
Meg Whitman has been spending a lot of money on ads stating that we must cut govt spending and fix education. She does not explain how you can fix education without fully funding it. Our state govt has cut services beyond the ridiculous, so there is nothing left to cut, yet Whitman calls for more cuts. How does one fix education while simultaneously starving it?
I will not support a female candidate simply because she is a woman. Whitman is bad for CA and I resent the meddling in CA politics represented by this blog and organization, which apparently doesn’t care whether the policies promoted by a female candidate are good for women or not.
Sally: Do the Democrats state how they plan to work within the budget? The problem is the states can’t just print money and they can’t run huge deficits so something has to go. Sounds like the out-of-state male dems plan to medel also. Lets hope they can stick to the issues and not go with the usual Democrat fear mongering regarding reproductive rights and misogynist smears.
In Seattle an out of state group of Dems ran an add that had a Sarah Palin smear at the end of it that was in support of the mainstream Seattle Mayor candidate. He lost big to a disorganized hippie with little experience. People really do resent the out of state interfeerence and the imported misogyny. Don’t worry The New Agenda will not be sending huge sums of money to corrupt your election process but we do like reading about women running for office.
sally, did she say she is starving education. I remember the 2008 debate. when Hillary brought up the budget deficits and fiscal responsibility. she also brought out specific plans how to support education. I don’t see any problem with the quote above as you stated it.
I enjoy the national perspective of this blog and the comments from contributors filling us in about issues, if any of these campaign are indeed issue driven. the deficit in california sounds like a good issue to me.
A lot of my friends live in California, and I am deeply concerned about their economic opportunities. I believe Meg Whitman is good for California because she was proven herself to be pro-business, and California needs someone pro-business with a record of knowing how to create jobs.
This isn’t a matter of a bunch of Dems who won’t stay within a budget versus a bunch of Repubs who favor fiscal responsibility. CA is a complex state with serious issues. To fund higher ed, a bill imposing a fee on those taking oil out of the ground has been proposed — we are the only oil-producing state without such a fee. Does Whitman support it? I’ll bet not, since it is opposed by oil companies. Another ridiculously high expense comes from the imposition of the 3-strikes rule that imprisons repeat offenders FOR LIFE for even a trivial third offense. That has filled prisons to the point where prison expenses are higher than education as a percentage of the budget, yet the strong prison guards union keeps blocking reform and tough-on-crime conservatives don’t understand the impact of such policies on the state budget. Is Whitman talking about sentencing reform? Of course not. Then there are the conservatives who dislike environmental reforms. They routinely hold the budget hostage in order to get rollbacks of environmental provisions they dislike. Do other conservatives put pressure on them to pass a budget. No. Then there is the chamber of commerce. Our governor is committed to business interests that oppose any increase in fees or taxes to fund anything whatsoever, so our governor has insisted on cuts-only budgets (vetoing legislative compromises) despite a short-fall in state revenues due to recession. However, the cuts have gone so deeply into education, services and infrastructure (such as state parks) that there is nothing left to cut, so he has laid off and furloughed state workers, something that increases unemployment and decreases consumer spending even more, worsening recession. State politics are dominated by interests such as water rights and casino gambling that have little to do with getting control of govt spending, so Whitman’s ad is a joke, empty platitudes meant to appeal to uneducated voters who think that we can solve financial problems if we just tighten the belt a little more. We have already elected a governor with similar views who has made a huge mess out of an already serious problem. We don’t need another such neophyte who thinks that having money and a “business” approach can solve everything. We need a skilled politician who is deeply familiar with all of the interests and who can bring together disparate factions, not someone who will play Russian roulette with people’s livelihoods by stalling yearly budgets until he gets one that lets business off scott-free but does nothing to even keep the state above water. Meg Whitman may be a woman but she is saying all the wrong things and I cannot support her because I care about what happens to my state.
“I will not support a female candidate simply because she is a woman.”
If I had half a cent for each time I’ve heard or read that line, I’d almost be a billionare myself.
Remember the words of Sojourner Truth: If women want any rights more than they’s got, why don’t they just take them, and not be talking about it.
It is time for women to be part of the solution. Vote for women, every woman you can. Support women, as many as you can, in all states. If we want to solve our country’s very serious problems, we need both halves of the population working on it. Women’s perspective will not be represented in government until we reach critical mass, at least 30%. Right now out country is operating at 50% capacity. Let’s get real, stop nitpicking re issues and emotion, get the women in there and watch real change happen. This is what our country sorely needs.
Sally: It sounds like you are a Democrat if it works for you then fine. I used to be one too but after the reproductive rights scare tactics, the farce of a primary/cacus and Dem convention and misogynist outbursts against women candidates of 2008 I no longer am. I vote for women.
we know for a very long time how white men have supported each other, blacks have supported each other for centuries now, hispanics are having their support systems, when you look at women – support for each other – hardly. and see where we are supporting everybody else but not us. supporting our men, husbands, chefs, in history women have supported any underprivileged group, but not themselves.
women banding together and not taking the back seat is the one concept we need to seriously embrace if we want serious change and a level playing field for us.
I know that my comments are not wanted and no one really responds, but I wish someone would respond to this proposal: Why can’t we become a women bloc of voters sworn to vote for the best person no matter what party they belong too focusing on issues close to women’s hearts AND sworn to hold those elected to keep their promises? Would this not make women as a whole much stronger than just voting for any woman….
This is a real question, not a rhetorical one. I am very interested in what all of you think because I think that there are many smart, informed and committed women who post and read here.
I do not see how voting in women like Pelosi will help women. And I’m sorry but Meg Whitman is way over her head in CA…..you must work your way up and she think she can jump from one top position in private industry to one top position in public work and that is never good for the little people
I know that you will just lambast me for agreeing with Sally but I have friends in CA and they laugh when her ads come on tv (and they are radical feminist lesbians who used to be democrats)…..
“Why can’t we become a women bloc of voters sworn to vote for the best person no matter what party they belong too focusing on issues close to women’s hearts AND sworn to hold those elected to keep their promises?”
Jennifer, this is actually the whole purpose of The New Agenda.
“Would this not make women as a whole much stronger than just voting for any woman….”
Jennifer, you do not realize that the vast majority of qualified women are dismissed because of their gender. This is entire reason behind my Hutchison post. Of course, there are horrible women out there. However, the horrible women and the wonderfully-qualified women are often lumped together in the same category. TNA wants to make certain the qualified women are acknowledged and elected. Do you understand this, Jennifer?
Karen,
“TNA wants to make certain the qualified women are acknowledged and elected.”
NO. TNA wants every woman to be elected no matter what. If this is not the case, why am I kicked to the curb for mentioning that sometimes it is not the woman?
According to Janis–someone I hold in high respect–we should just vote every woman in because it will shift the gender power paradigm so much that whether it is Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton it will benefit all women and the country. As much as I tried to wrap myself in this belief, I cannot support it because I found too many flaws.
So, what is it women. Are we supporting the best candidate or all women?
“NO. TNA wants every woman to be elected no matter what. If this is not the case, why am I kicked to the curb for mentioning that sometimes it is not the woman?”
Because, Jennifer, you refuse to acknowledge that the women we discuss here _are_ qualified and are in fact equal to the men. You don’t even consider them. I agree in your basic sentiment; I also want the best qualified individual to win. However, you lump together all the qualified women with the unqualified women and refuse to acknowledge their qualifications.
You never explained how Kay Bailey Hutchison’s vote for the stimulus package or any of her other votes is worse than what Rick Perry has done. In fact, Rick Perry is the least qualified out of all the GOP candidates, regardless of gender. Perry’s hideous lack of qualifications is why 60% of Texans voted against him the last time.
We are about speaking out against sexism directed at ALL women.
Some here will vote based solely on gender – others not so. Both are okay. That said, a major premise of this organization is getting more women into positions of leadership (in politics, from all parties).
[...] It’s merely a guide. My job is to try to explain, persuade, and defend the idea that voting for women, ALL women, all the time, is the only strategy that will ever lead to actual parity for women in government. I hope people [...]
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...