FLASHREPORT

I am happy to support Meg Whitman for CRP Chair. I know many maybe confused because Whitman has been running ads touting her candidacy for Governor. But perception is not always reality. The Governor’s campaign could just be a way to build name identification and contacts for the coveted CRP Post!

Of course I’m kidding, but recent actions by Meg Whitman's campaign staff are very puzzling. Whitman’s people have joined some others in the usual intra-party squabbles that no one cares about except those of us that attend conventions. I’ve seen the emails with the Meg Whitman campaign on it asking and organizing proxies for this weekends CRP Convention in San Diego .

Why would any candidate for Governor divert resources from a closely contested campaign to gather proxies for rules changes and resolutions?

I have two theories both troubling.

1. Meg Whitman doesn’t know her resources have been diverted. In October 2001 I got a phone call asking me if I was supporting the “Parsky reforms” that would bring prestige, power and wealth untold to the State Party. (Results may have varied). I told the person, “no”. He replied with, “President Bush wants these rules changes.” My response was something like, “If Bush cares about the CRP Rules changes after we just lost the World Trade Center , I want him impeached”. So it wouldn't be the first time someone’s name has been used without authorization.

2. Meg Whitman DOES know about this. This is very troubling. It is similar to Spring Convention when I saw a State Assembly candidate. I asked him why he was there and not campaigning in his race. He told me it was in the bag. Well, he won’t be called Assemblyman this year because he lost the primary. If Whitman knows then she isn’t as focused on beating Brown as I would hoped she would be.

Why would the Whitman campaign want to get involved in this convention?

Maybe they think there is a straw poll and they want to make sure they beat Steve Poizner?

I won’t raise the issue of consultants making money. In my years, I have met no people purer in heart than the political consultant. So absent a profit motive, why?

I was in Sacramento last week and I ran into someone on the Meg Whitman payroll. It isn’t that hard to do so up there and I asked that question. The response was they didn’t want any “trouble” at the convention.

Really? Then why jump into fights. Does the Whitman campaign want headlines from political reporters about how her proxies were used to beat up conservatives? Or headlines favoring conservatives over moderates? The last one probably wasn’t realistic, but here is a good one.

CRA President Celeste Greig has a resolution supporting Arizona ’s immigration law. Would reporters and maybe John and Ken wonder if Whitman’s proxies were used to kill the resolution? Or did she use them to let it pass? Maybe the answer depends on the geography, but you see my point. By actively involving themselves they have made “trouble” for themselves, when they should be beating up Jerry Brown.