Whitman is toast; Jerry by a landslide. (title, money)

[UB50]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Regrettably, that's how most Americans seem to vote anymore. Saves them the trouble of having to learn to think for themselves, weigh issues and make decisions.

It's sad. I've voted for a lot of Republicans in my time, even though I'm a registered Democrat.

In this election (Governor) there isn't a question in my mind of who is best suited for the job.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by UB50

It's sad. I've voted for a lot of Republicans in my time, even though I'm a registered Democrat.

In this election (Governor) there isn't a question in my mind of who is best suited for the job.

Mine either: neither one is suited this time around, how sad for California,

Nita

[RCCCB]

There is a clear choice though:

Brown, trust fund baby of an ex leftist Gov. Jerry was Gov before, let all the unions and big time pensions on our nickle into the state employment pool.
Brown also tried to appoint communists and lots of near communists to different boards.
When you think Jerry Brown, you think biggest goernment, big hand outs to big unions and lots of welfare for years in exchange for a Democrat vote.

Whitman unlike Brown actually worked for a living outside of government. Became a billionair and evidently felt so strongly about the job that she spend some 150 million of her own agaisnt the 250 million of the state union (teachers/gov employees/ ect.).

Whitman wants to reduce the size of government, have fiscal resonsibility and supposedly bla bla about schools.

Though Whitman is 12000% a better choice than comrad Brown, truth is the teachers suck and the reason we get educational losers not graduating is they either come from drug or boozed up parents or the parents just suck to no end.
You want your kids to do well?
Have the child ready to sit, participate, learn and work in the school. If the kid can't do that, they'll be a welfare case or pushing a broom down the road.
Parents need to make sure work is done, that homework is done and that there is study time being taken each day.
Giving teachers more money is not the answerl. She means well, but I think Brown and Whitman both refuse to say the truth about education because the last think they want to do is **** off all the parents who vote, even though it is they who ruin their children's life IMO.

We'll probably get Brown and you will see the rest of the end of CA IMO as the hand out people drive what is left into the dust.

Too much Democrat Domination in the state for too long. It's become a cess pool.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by Footballfreak

If the people on this board complaining about liberals want a conservative lifestyle, they should stop whining and move to the south or midwest. That'll be heaven for you. Tornados, humidity, bibles and all!

Why should they have to move? Is there a law that CA must be liberal? Are libs so intolerant that they can't "share"?

The libs need to remember every one of these "don't like it, then move" and "we won, you lost" and "they can sit in the back seat" comments after Tuesday.

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by nmnita

Mine either: neither one is suited this time around, how sad for California,

Nita

This.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by AliveandWell

I voted for Jerry Brown too. Meg Whitman is just a rich businesswoman. She's not going to care about the middle class of this state anyway. All her talk of bringing more jobs to CA if she is elected is nothing but a piece of rubbish! I'm not saying Jerry Brown is the best person to fix CA but he he may be better than her. I honestly can't believe why the people of CA were so stupid to recall Gray Davis and vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That just shows how the people of this state lack the proper political education.

And Jerry Brown's a rich career politician. He doesn't care about the middle class either. And if you think Brown would be better than Meg, heaven help you all.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by majoun

How was Pat Brown "nearly Marxist"?
Unless you feel taking the North's water and redistributing it to the South is Marxist.

Whitman's business career was largely due to her connections. eBay needed someone with ties to the East Coast big money.



Jerry Brown was an attorney for Tuttle & Taylor for much of the 1960s according to Wiki, and also had a talk radio show in the mid-'90s. Tuttle & Taylor was a mid-sized general practice law firm that worked with California businesses.



You realize Brown has been a fiscal conservative?

Wow, I was just chuckling until that last comment. Seriously?

And as for Whitman's career being largely due to connections: would you say the same about a man that did that? And what IS business, if not making and using connections. Have you ever run a business?

An attorney, and talk show host? Not "real" careers in my opinion.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by xcalgal

If you don't like her because she is smug, you must really hate Obama.

I just can't stand the way Obama talks, the cadence and the way he emphasizes certain words. It's a chore for me to pay attention when he has some speech that's important for me to watch (e.g. state of the union).

I'd love to have a new president in 2012 even if only because the new one is bound to talk differently. Not that I don't have plenty of other reasons.

When I see either Whitman or Obama speak on TV I wish somebody would run up and b---- slap them.

[ambient]

If the Republicans could have picked a candidate who has more personal appeal than a barracuda, Brown would have been history. This is one of the most generally anti-incumbent/insider/liberal environments I've seen in many a year...it must have taken remarkable skill to find the one mega-rich Republican woman who could turn everyone off like clockwork even under these circumstances.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by ambient

...it must have taken remarkable skill to find the one mega-rich Republican woman who could turn everyone off like clockwork even under these circumstances.

Both parties followed almost the same strategy in the 2008 presidential election, perhaps both knowing that inevitably one of them would win, each caring more about the success of their political parties than of the success of America or the happiness of the citizens.

The whole sickness of America is based upon the psychological principle that most people will look at 2-3 possible choices before making their decision. They will pick either #1 or #2 of their choices and relegate #3 and on to the dust bin. If you are going to remodel your house you focus on the two best estimates. It's the same thing with political parties, that almost everybody picks either the #1 or #2 party. Third party candidates succeed only infrequently. Usually the best that third parties can do is draw votes from the mainstream party nearest to them in ideology, thusly insuring the victory of their opponents who don't have any third party dragging voters away from them.

Moderates such as myself usually face the choice of somebody too far right (Whitman) or somebody too far left (Brown). Unlike Goldilocks and the Three Bears there's never any "just right," only too soft or too hard, always an extremist because only extremists win in a two party system.

So which will you vote for, Whitman or Brown? I hope a few of you feel like me, wanting a choice more moderate and more middle of the spectrum than either of them.