Meg Whitman connected to scandal-ridden Goldman Sachs

[Kense]

Originally Posted by californio sur

Meg's poll numbers are taking a drop but she much stronger against Brown than Poizner: currently Poizner: 32% against Brown at 50%. Already Republicans are beginning to read the writing on the wall. Unless Jerry Brown makes a lot of mistakes he will be governor again.

Yup, after Arnold the fact anybody would vote for a "regular" person billionaire again is pretty ridiculous.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by Kense

Yup, after Arnold the fact anybody would vote for a "regular" person billionaire again is pretty ridiculous.

What's funny is Poizner's TV ad against Meg suggesting that she would be just another Schwarzenegger [something like "can we have a real Republican" for governor?]. And Whitman attacks Poizner for supporting Al Gore while forgetting that she gave $ to Barbara Boxer!

[Snort]

I've tried to locate Poizner's endorsement of Gore and came up with this:

"Poisner gave money to Al Gore on behalf of his wife who is a big democrat who wanted to go to an event to see Al Gore speak in the bay area. That was 10 years ago. I mean i guess that kind of sucks, but not really sure how that makes any difference. He didnt endorse or campaign for Gore like Meg is implying. Another false attack."
from Steve Poizner the True Conservative! Or, um... | Red County

"[Updated: 11:39 a.m.] "Meg Whitman’s hypocrisy has no limit as she is the only candidate that endorsed Al Gore, campaigned for Barbara Boxer, and supported Pete Wilson’s $112 billion in tax increases,” Agen said. "Meg Whitman is worried about this primary and has rehashed the same lies which have already been proven untrue."
from Whitman trains fire on Poizner as primary battle intensifies [Updated]| PolitiCal | Los Angeles Times

Is there another source that documents Poizner endorsing Gore?

[Kense]

Originally Posted by californio sur

What's funny is Poizner's TV ad against Meg suggesting that she would be just another Schwarzenegger [something like "can we have a real Republican" for governor?]. And Whitman attacks Poizner for supporting Al Gore while forgetting that she gave $ to Barbara Boxer!

LOL politics sickens me.

[native56]

You guys post these Whitman attack threads at the rate of about one every two weeks. Does that mean we'll have to endure 12 more of these before election? First one of you starts the tread then the tag team piles on. But you never discuss actual things that Brown or Whitman stand for. Just personal attacks. Are you afraid to discuss actual issues? I could certainly underestand why.

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by native56

You guys post these Whitman attack threads at the rate of about one every two weeks. Does that mean we'll have to endure 12 more of these before election? First one of you starts the tread then the tag team piles on. But you never discuss actual things that Brown or Whitman stand for. Just personal attacks. Are you afraid to discuss actual issues? I could certainly underestand why.

So who's stopping you?

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by native56

You guys post these Whitman attack threads at the rate of about one every two weeks. Does that mean we'll have to endure 12 more of these before election? First one of you starts the tread then the tag team piles on. But you never discuss actual things that Brown or Whitman stand for. Just personal attacks. Are you afraid to discuss actual issues? I could certainly underestand why.

Problem is that they all say the exact same thing (education, economy, jobs..immigration is also in there now). Everyone in California knows what the issues are..We all know what they "stand" for...I "stand" is just a buzzword that has no meat.

The focus has to be about the candidates and what kind of people they are, ...it's not a tag team unless you're obviously backing the opponent with the questionable history.

Don't you think we have a right to know what they are REALLY about? A personal attack to me means discussing her personal life (marriage, divorce, looks, smoking a joint 20yrs ago). Not important.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by native56

You guys post these Whitman attack threads at the rate of about one every two weeks. Does that mean we'll have to endure 12 more of these before election? First one of you starts the tread then the tag team piles on. But you never discuss actual things that Brown or Whitman stand for. Just personal attacks. Are you afraid to discuss actual issues? I could certainly underestand why.

If you've ever read through any of my political discussion postings, I think you'd see that I'm hardly one to attack Republicans.

In this case, she has a clear ethics issue, and it might become a cornerstone discussion as the election nears.

[californio sur]

I know some disagree but I really don't see much difference between any candidates for governor in California. To get elected, a Republican has to be very moderate [Arnold is pro-gay marriage\ smoked marijuana] and Democrats aren't any different from Republicans when it comes down to dealing with California's many problems. During primary campaigns Republicans try their best to draw conservative voters but once nominated they become very Democratic in their views. I suppose non-partisanship is strong in California except in the legislature [and Republicans are out numbered 2 to 1 by Democrats]. That's where the most ideological politicians exists.

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

If you've ever read through any of my political discussion postings, I think you'd see that I'm hardly one to attack Republicans.

In this case, she has a clear ethics issue, and it might become a cornerstone discussion as the election nears.

Quite right. But also keep in mind that you're talking to an OC Republican (aka "ideologue"), whose idea of "discussing actual issues" tends to be comments like, "Governor Moonbeam. Can California really be that screwy?", or "If I were in charge, I would give a loyalty test and ban liberals."