Reasons NOT to vote for Meg Whitman, other than her immigration hypocrisy

In Current Events, Election Politics on October 4, 2010 at 18:55

As much of the political world and voters in California know (non-voters might not know because they don’t give a damn who rips us off, Republicans or Democrats), Republican Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman hired a maid who was here illegally for nine years from 2000 to 2009 . Whitman says she didn’t know, but there is some documented evidence that she did. The lesson? Treat your employees with kindness or they might turn on you.

Whitman got caught after a history of railing against illegal immigrants and calling for sanctions against companies that knowingly hire illegals. I wonder what sanction she will put on herself for hiring and illegal?

So here are your choices: 1) Whitman is lying and she hired an illegal immigrant against her stated opposition to illegal immigration or 2) Whitman is incompetent and didn’t keep track of her employees status and thus is not qualified to be dog catcher. In fact, Whitman only qualifies to run for governor by being a billionaire and a woman with right-wing beliefs who can spend millions on her campaign to become a household name. She didn’t even vote until 2005 and just recently joined the Republican party.

Perhaps this scandal will push Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown over the top and onto victory. He’s now 5% ahead in polling when he was even with Whitman two weeks ago.  Brown is a lying schmuck like most politicians, but on the issues, he’s had the best interests of California in his mind, even when he’s misguided. Whitman on the other hand is pro-corporate to the exclusion of workers and anyone else. She’s just the kind of candidate Republicans like.

Even though Whitman has showed the standard political hypocrisy by saying one thing and doing another when hiring this illegal immigrant, that’s not the only reason to vote against her and vote for the well intentioned prevaricator to her left.

No, I won’t mention that Whitman is a billionaire and perhaps it’s not the best idea to let a billionaire run a state when it is clear that her interests would be completely different from the regular working people in California. No, that would be unfair stereotyping. Certainly, Republicans wouldn’t unfairly stereotype Democrats or liberals (two overlapping yet distinct groups).

Just because Whitman has spent $119 million of her own money on her campaign to become governor of California doesn’t mean she’s any different from you and me. We can run for governor too if we could scrape up the $3500 for the filing fee and get a party to support us. So what if we don’t have the millions to spend on the election. That doesn’t mean she’s different from us. She puts on her Secret Circus pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.

Here’s her opening statement on her website:

Meg Whitman is determined to bring a new approach to Sacramento. One that demands we create jobs and lower taxes. One that requires more effciency and better services. And one that makes a renewed commitment to improving our schools.

So Whitman’s new approach consists of lower taxes. It sounds new to me, that’s for sure.

If she didn’t vote until 2005, why the sudden interest in politics? Well, since leaving eBay, she hasn’t had much to do with herself. She has billions of dollars just sitting there not being productive. The market is risky, the housing bubble is over, and investing in green technologies would be like admitting global warming exists. But political office, not there’s an investment that keeps on giving.

As Governor, she will make it pay off. After gutting environmental regulations in California, busting the teachers unions, and lowering taxes on the top bracket in the state, California can become Mexico of the north, or Burma of the West. California will be a safe place to invest with no environmental standards, no minimum wage, and no unions.

Then after 8 years as governor tearing down all the barriers to businesses that have made California unbearable to invest in, she can leave office and get a cushy job in private sector selling stuff over the Internet. The problem is if her vision succeeds, there will be no consumers left in the state to buy what she’s selling.

She is against laws to reduce greenhouse gases, specifically AB 32 in California. She has no idea what she’s talking about because this law (AB32) would CREATE jobs. She is clueless. This won’t loose us jobs. Like most politicians, she’s making statements without looking at the evidence.

A new study on AB 32 states that the law would create jobs and save jobs due to reduced emissions

“,,,will AB32 take jobs away from Californians? The answer, quite simply, is No.”

Read the complete report on how this law will create long-term growth. It might hurt Whitman’s cronies, but for the rest of us, it’s a good idea to have green jobs and cleaner air.

She’s against same sex marriage, supporting proposition 8. She’s pro-civil union, as if a civil union and a marriage is the same thing. http://valleywag.gawker.com/5109035/meg-whitman-homophobe

<object width=”640″ height=”385″><param value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/nPo7a7B4axA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param></object>

She’s anti-union; she is a boss and CEO and doesn’t want workers to have any power. Unions benefit regular workers in so many ways. Jerry Brown might lie to unions once in a while, but he won’t try to bust them. Generally Brown has stood on the side of workers.

So Whitman is a hypocrite on immigration, she is a homophobe, she is unclear about women’s right to choose, she is against environmental laws to reduce green house gasses, and she’s anti-union. What’s not to love?

Action: Vote for the part time liar who cares (Brown), not the liar who profits from your pain (Whitman).

Sign up on these pages to take action and write letters:

Facebook group against Whitman

Meg Whitman’s faith drives her opposition to gay marriage. So much for logic and science during Governor Whitman’s term. Check out “NoMeg”.

Tex Shelters

  1. I like Jerry, lived in CA in the 70s and liked him then too. I’ve listened to both debates, and frankly, Meg doesn’t sound like she knows shit about running anything, no less the California Government.

    We’ve already tried the celeb (Arnold), let’s let an actual governor run the state. 😉


    • JR,

      Agreed. I saw some of one of the debate and thought her responses were ridiculous.

      Thanks for stopping by.

      Tex Shelters

  2. I dislike – no, I loathe – Whitman. She may not have known the illegality of the immigration status of her employee – or she may have a policy of not inquiring about such details. She almost certainly has aides, assistants, housekeepers, butlers or staffers by some other name who do vetting and hiring and, then, supervision and discipline, with the agreement that Whitman not be “bothered” or “inconvenienced” with “minor details.”

    The exceptions would be upper staff who reported directly to Whitman. A maid would not report directly to Ms Whitman.

    That pro-Whitman statement being made, let me say that Whitman brings dangerous ideas with her which will hurt the average American. Whitman enters the arena for the corporation-as-person. The rich. The CEO as Queen. A vote for her is a vote against folks like me. I’d be taking that personally.

    A vote against the average American. I will go so far as to say that a vote for her is to take a step backwards.

    If Whitman did not “know” that her employee was here illegally, she maintained a policy designed to shield her from such knowledge and to keep in place the means for a cover-up. So, even my “pro” statement is “anti.”

    • Leeza,

      She should know such things and there is no excuse. And yes, she is anti everyone but corporations and other CEOs.


      Tex Shelters

  3. Griff Harsh, the husband of California gubernatorial candidate Nutneg Whitman, acknowledged in a statement on Thursday that “it is possible” he received and wrote notes on a letter from the Social Security Administration back in 2003, regarding the former housekeeper. The Whitman/ Harsh household then fired their housekeeper in June 2009 (after nine years of service), when Nutmeg handlers decided that she was an election liability.

    Meg, Meg, Meg, where do I start, you have reportedly spent $119 million of your own money to get elected Governor but you couldn’t use some of it to get your housekeeper (after nine years of service) some legal help to get her papers, and worse you lied about it. Wow, what a WITCH, of course I meant it with a “B”.


    But your comments on holding employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers real takes the cake, I assume you exempt yourself and your husband, or will you be turning yourself in.

    Meg on holding employers accountable:

    Meg you think you can buy the election, but what puzzles many is if you real cared and loved California then why not do your civic duty and vote, seems more rhetoric than anything else.

    In good times we might give you a try but not in our disaster mode that we find ourselves in after that so-called outsider Independent Republican, named Arnold Schwarzenegger (sold to us by radio personalities John and Ken), ruined our state, yah we will trust another one of you liars, think not. And another thing nine years this maid was in your house, in your house and you failed to learned this major thing about her, come on this sounds like a huge lie that no one can believe in.

    Ebay paid out $200,000 because Nutmeg assaulted an employee, so it’s not the first time she has mistreated an employee. Good luck winning Nutmeg, money will buy you admiration from the majority just from the Gay Old Party (GOP), but not from all of California.

    • Montana,

      Excellent follow up and additions. I love it.

      She is qualified becauase she’s a billionaire. yeah, right.

      Tex Shelters

  4. Nice piece, Tex. I am learning things! Like she never voted? And from Montana… she assaulted an employee?

    One thing… if she buys her way in… she could get credit down the line for prosperity that will likely follow, for if marijuana gets legalized, tourism to California is going to go through the roof.

    • Randy,

      Yes, I would be willing to run pot tours of San Francisco even though I don’t smoke. We would traverse Haight Ashbury, the Grateful Dead house, Hippie Hill, Seal Beach, The Castro and Harvey Milk Headquarter, etc.

      Tex Shelters

  5. Mexican governor: Gay marriage ‘grosses me out’…

    I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…

  6. I suppose I can’t criticize people who are ignorant because they only are speaking to what the news gives them. Follow it more closely and you’ll find that WHITMAN WENT THROUGH A HIRING AGENCY, which gave her the illegal worker. Yeah, so it’s Whitman’s fault, right? She should have done her own background check of the worker, right? I mean, come on. That’s what the agency is for; why on earth would you have to duplicate background check efforts for this.

    • VC,

      You make a point, but she tried to cover it up instead of just coming clean and saying she made a mistake and that this is a big issue. She could have said, “see,it’s a problem everywhere” instead of going into spin mode. Besides, she could have easily told the agency to verify their status.

      And, that is not the issue I would vote against her on. There are so many other reasons, and I listed a few, NOT to vote for her.

      Thanks for the comments!

      Tex Shelters

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: