« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Meg Whitman: The Next Arnold In Waiting.

Meg Whitman was on America’s Morning News today. After listening to her talk, I had the distinct impression that what we’re getting is another big government liberal. When queried about the illegal alien subject she danced all over the issue, saying that “Arizona’s anti-illegal alien law was not for California”. It made me wonder if she had ever read California’s statutes, like 634-b of the criminal code. Maybe someone should tell her that we have had the same laws on our books for decades.

Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown

Successive liberal state governments (like Jerry ‘Moonbeam’ Brown’s) have tied law enforcements’ hands, preventing them from arresting illegals for anything except violent crime, and turning them over to ICE agents and deporting them. These laws have been in existence for thirty years or more.

Whitman then moved on to say that she would ‘seal’ the border. Um, has anybody bothered to tell Megs that the Feds control the border? Sounds just like an Arizona problem doesn’t it? Maybe Whitman should talk to some of the ranchers in the Jacumba, Davies Station or Campo Station areas of the state she wishes to govern, who have to go around armed and in fear for their families.

She further said she would ensure that employers were severely punished for hiring illegal aliens and see to it that so-called ‘sanctuary cities’ would be punished and prevented from sheltering illegal aliens, such as the convicted felon who slaughtered Tony Bologna and two of his sons in that great outdoor sewer and illegal alien paradise, San Francisco.

Sounds pretty good in a general way, doesn’t it? Until you find out that she is broadcasting the diametric opposite message in Spanish on Latino language radio stations and on at least one billboard, which had been spotted and reported by a Tea Party patriot, saying “No on 187 and No on the Arizona immigration law“. In Spanish that would be called “hablar dando una de cal y otra de arena”. Speaking from both sides of your mouth.

Not that I think ‘Moonbeam’ is any bargain either. He made a hash of state government as Governor once before and then for an encore, as Mayor, turned Oakland into a veritable shooting gallery.
Abel Maldinado is out of the question as well… he’s not even a good crook… just a stupid ego-maniacal one. That leaves us with Meg, who thought that Van Jones (Oakland communist agitator) was the greatest thing since cream cheese. Not a great selection for Californians.

But, we cannot afford to stay home. If anything, we have to support Whitman as the best of several bad choices and then try and pressure her to do the right thing. Sounds like a familiar scenario for Californians, doesn’t it?
We booted Gray Davis to get Arnold, and we’re getting rid of him for…?

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

COMMENTS

  • eastbaylarry

    and I will do my duty in the general, knowing full well that I won’t like the outcome no matter who wins.

  • eastbaylarry

    and I will do my duty in the general, knowing full well that I won’t like the outcome no matter who wins.

  • IJB

    I don’t want Jerry Brown to win this race.

    Diaries like this aren’t helping.

    • crassus

      Meg Whitman is irrelevant. She will be a terrible governor.

      • SteveLA

        I’ll probably vote for eMeg, but she has really thrown those of in the state that think something needs to be done about the illegal alien invasion in the state under the bus. I’m not even talking SB1070 sorts of actions, anything, even going after employers like she talked about during the primary have been taken off the table. Seems like she’s backing away from doing anything at all about illegal immigration.

        We’re probably going to have Governor MoonBeam the Second coming out ehre.

        • IJB

          Whitman is smart enough to know that she can get *nothing* done on the illegal immigration front. She’s be smarter to just say nothing on the issue, but I certainly don’t expect her to run as Tom Tancredo here.

          *The* issue in the race is going to be the budget, taxes, and public employee pensions and benefits (and the fact that public employee unions are too powerful in CA) – as long as she keeps focusing on those issues, she has a clear path to victory.

          • crassus

            I think she will. But I think she will be a bad Governor. No Governor I have seen has the guts to take on the public sector. Except Chris Christie. And quite frankly, Meg Whitman is no Chris Christie.

          • acat

            Her tactics won’t look anything like Christie’s but I have .. reason to believe .. she can be tough as nails when she has to.

            I’m somewhat concerned she’ll be so close to center it’ll be hard to spot the “right”, and she may hit Sacramento and bounce but, unlike The Governator, I doubt she’ll take that as a hint to change sides.

            Mew

          • IJB

            But there is one absolute truth about this race – Meg Whitman is *far more likely* to take on public-sector unions than Jerry Brown is.

            (And, I further maintain, because of her business background, Whitman is far more likely to be able to *successfully* achieve some results on that front than Arnold Schwarzenegger…)

          • JamesSmith130

            I think Arnold’s movie star charisma trumps Whitman’s business background in convincing the state to make conservative reforms.

            But there is one thing different. The time and situation. California wasn’t bankrupt in 2005, but it is today. Had that Arnold pushed his 2005 referendums today, I bet it would pass.

          • IJB

            Celebrities are “mercurial” – that more than anything else explains Arnold’s policy zig-zagging over the last 6 years. There has been *zero* consistency in what Arnie has done – that’s why he’s so unpopular now.

            Whitman, having a business background, and understanding tactical and strategic thinking, is a lot more likely to be able to see her policies actually implemented.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Arnold gave one try at getting things working in California, and when his initiatives failed, that was it, game over.

            He showed no staying power, and not much brainpower. Whitman at least has run something before.

      • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

        :Opening mouth:

        You know what? You bore me.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • JamesSmith130

    I would vote for Whitman for one reason.

    Redistricting. Give the Dems control of that and there goes 5-10 GOP seats in the House.

  • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon