Monday, October 11, 2010

Fakeroversy In The Governor's Race


It must be tough when you're running for governor and you have no idea what you're doing, so you figure that, since every candidate needs to start some sort of a scandal against their opponent, you'll just do that and see how it goes. While I don't recommend that approach, if you're going to take that route, might I suggest coming up with a scandal that people would give a fat rat's ass about? Acting all indignant because someone referred to you as a whore is really not going to do much to help you. It will be great fun for those who enjoy mocking you, however.

See, Meg Whitman is running for governor of California. For some reason, her being at the helm when eBay kind of rode itself to its own success is supposed to give her some sort of credibility as the Republican candidate. Well, that and the $140 million of her own money that she has poured into her campaign to get the nomination. (Apparently, she thinks the governor's seat is some sort of Buy It Now dealio.) And lately, she's been rocked by allegations of a former housekeeper that she...um...well....it's not real clear to me exactly what it is that she's being accused of doing. It might be that she didn't treat the hired help all that well, but I'm not totally sure about this. The fact that her ex-housekeeper was in this country illegally, used a fake Social Security number while Meg employed her and was then fired when Meg found out somehow plays a part in all of this, but again, I'm not quite sure how. It's definitely a fakeroversy (fake controversy), but I still have trouble grasping all of the straws that it contains.

Now, after that became the hooplah du jour (complete with Gloria Allred, the world's most awful human being, at the housekeeper's helm), Meg's campaign needed to have someone on her opponent, Jerry Brown. What did they come up with? I guess they had a hard time coming up with anything of substance because apparently, one of his staffers referred to her as a whore, so that's what they went with. Wait. What?

Yep. According to ABC News, Jerry Brown "...left a phone message in early September for a union official whose endorsement he was seeking, but apparently forgot to hang up...And either Brown or a staffer -- there is some dispute -- uses the word "whore" to describe his Republican rival Meg Whitman." Hmm. How about a little context to go with all of that nothing-ness there?

OK. The first part of the conversation that Brown has with one of his staffers after he thought that he had hung up goes something along the lines of Brown saying: "Do we want to put an ad out? … That I have been warned if I crack down on pensions, I will be – that they'll go to Whitman, and that's where they'll go because they know Whitman will give 'em, will cut them a deal, but I won't." So what he's saying (behind closed doors and totally off the record, as he didn't know that he didn't hang up) is that he's not going to cut a deal with the unions, but Whitman is, despite her saying publicly that she's not beholden to any group.

It's after that question that the staffer (or someone else) says, "What about saying she's a whore?" That's quite the idea. Call your opponent a whore in your ads. I don't know that I think it's the most politically savvy move, but Jerry Brown seemed to love it, as he responded, "Well, I'm going to use that...It proves you've cut a secret deal to protect the pensions." I don't know if calling her a whore would prove that, per se. But it would show that you're not afraid to call someone a whore!

Once Whitman's side became aware of this colorful depiction of her, they immediately issued a pansy-ass response. "The use of the term 'whore' is an insult to both Meg Whitman and to the women of California. This is an appalling and unforgivable smear against Meg Whitman. At the very least Mr. Brown tacitly approved this despicable slur and he himself may have used the term at least once on this recording,"

Really? It's an insult to the women of California? How is that? I'm a woman of California and I'm not insulted by Jerry Brown's staffers calling Meg Whitman a whore. It's hard to say if I'd be insulted if they called me a whore. Then again, I don't get insulted easily. That's a weak response. You know what would have been a better response? To DENY that you're acting like a whore by being in bed with the unions and promising them deals in exchange for their endorsements. Now THAT would have been something!

Did she dispute the essence of why they were calling her a whore? Not that I can find. No, she just decided to take the "You hurt my feelings" angle on it. And that seems to be how this is being reported. Why is it that we're focusing on the alleged name calling instead of the fact that she seems to be cutting back room deals with unions? Why aren't we focusing on the fact that Jerry Brown said in private (or what he thought was private) that he wasn't going to make deals with the unions? For him to have said that in private seems to lend credibility to him really meaning that. After all, why would you say something like that if you didn't mean it? It's not like you knew the whole world was going to hear you. It seems pretty credible to me.

But no. Instead, Meg Whitman wants to us to be all up in arms that Jerry Brown's staffer called her a whore. Well, I'm putting down my arms, as they are not up. This is ridiculous. Her allegedly cutting deals with the unions in order to win their support is the real story here. But she's not mentioning that. She's just whining about being called a whore. And by the way, if she is cutting back room deals with the unions in exchange for their support, then she absolutely is a whore. A big, big whore. Whore.

You know, if she can't handle being called a name, I'm not real confident in her ability to lead this ridiculously corrupt state out of the s***hole that it has been in for years. And if she's being a sneaky weasel and saying one thing to the public, but doing another thing in private, I'm absolutely positive that she won't be able to get anything done. Please don't take this as an endorsement for Jerry Brown, however. While the real story might be whether or not she is actually cutting deals, I think that the secondary story might be that Jerry Brown can't figure out how to hang up his phone after leaving a message. It doesn't do much to distract folks from the fact that he's a little old.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

2 comments:

Montana said...

Griff Harsh, the husband of California gubernatorial candidate Nutmeg 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/Maid. The Harsh/ Whitman household then fired their housekeeper in June 2009 (after nine years of service), when Nutmeg handlers decided that she was an election liability.

And now the Jill Armstrong, a former full-time nanny of the Harsh/ Whitman dungeon, came to the defense of the Housekeeper/Maid and told the San Francisco Chronicle that she believes Diaz's claim because she "know[s] the family" and "what it was like."

Meg, Meg, Meg, where do I start, you have reportedly spent $140 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”.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#39450925

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGRrNs8-s5w

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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4fWLHiw8zA

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.

Mare said...

Hey, Montana.

I enjoy the moniker "Nutmeg Whitman". Most excellent.

I don't think she's going to win, either, but I'm not exactly thrilled about four years of Grandpa Simpson at the helm.

I'm a bit torn on her not paying for an immigration lawyer for her maid, Weeping Nicky. On the one hand, she worked for her for nine years and, as Nutmeg herself put it, was like a member of their family. On the other hand, she lied to them for nine years. I'm not so sure I would jump up and help someone who has lied to me for nine years, either.

Thanks for reading, Montana!

~ Mare

PS You sort of implied you listen to John and Ken. Do you listen to Armstrong and Getty, too? They're most excellent and (I think) funnier than John and Ken. Kind of the same sort of show, though. They rarely trumpet up one particular candidate, however. I like how they try to see both sides of everything.