There will be more to come about the California Republican Party convention in coming days — as longtime FR readers know, as a blogger who is also an elected officer of the party, it is difficult for me to devote a lot of time the weekend of the convention to writing about it in real time.
That said, while this convention has been a lot of fun, I have to say as a politico that so far the best "entertainment value" of the weekend was enjoyed by the small group of people who occupied the press conference room yesterday afternoon to hear the media availabilities of Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman — both of which were quite stimulating.
Poizner opened his availability with some thoughts on his policy agenda — he was not scheduled to speak until the dinner last night and so he hit some details for the reporters presents. A portion of Poizner’s plan to revitalize California’s economy is a 10% reduction in tax rates to stimulate economic growth. Poizner’s assertion that lowering the rates would actually increase state tax revenues was met with a number of questions from reporters about this assertion — wanting more information on exactly how additional tax income to the state would arise from this sort of reduction. It was clear from Poizner’s response that if there is a way to figure out the answer to this question, his policy-wonks had not yet done so. One would think that it isn’t that easy to predict how long it will take the state to climb out of the current economic malaise. Bringing back memories of the 2006 Insurance Commissioner race, we got to hear a question about some of Poizner’s previous contributions to Democrat candidates. Poizner has asserted, consistently, that these donation were part of the process of his family’s political giving, and that he wrote checks to Republicans for his part, and to Democrats for his wife’s part (they have a mixed-party marriage – go figure).
It was actually Meg Whitman’s time in front of reporters that was the most — entertaining — for those on hand. Specifically there was a period of about three or four minutes where reporters really drilled Whitman about her voting record, or lack of it. I actually recorded the back and forth on my PDA, and was going to attach it to this post. But, of course, welcome to the "free market" of a competitive primary — the Poizner campaign also apparently took an audio recording and their presentation of the exchange, on the You Tube clip below, is of "higher quality" than mine. Anyways, check it out below. Whitman clearly knew exactly what she did and did not want to say on this issue — and it was frustrating to reporters.
Tom Campbell also had an availability which in terms of political theater was unremarkable.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
The Liberal Media can’t abide Women, Latino or African-American Republicans. That’s why they viciously attacked Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzalez and Sarah Palin in the past. That’s why they are attacking Meg Whitman now.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
WHY she did not register OR vote for so long IS a legitimate question for all of us to ask.
She should also answer as to why she uneqivocally endorsed (on video) green marxist Van Jones (who recently was removed as Obama’s Green Czar) during the ‘Green Cruise’ she took with him.
It really shows her bent toward the sham green movement and a lack of judgement on her part, in my opinion.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
PS. This is not to imply my support of either Poizner or Campbell at this point.
Poizner made it easy for Insurance Companies to raise our rates recently (nothing to do with the wildfires) and Campbell as I have read, is OK with the homosexual agenda.
WHERE is credible Conservative leadership (in all regards) at this point in the race for governor?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Mary Rose – I am an insurance broker. What you are referring to is the reversing of Garamendi rules that sought to lower Southern California rates at the expense of Northern California.
Insurance rates have been falling for 5 years – and have only started leveling out… how is that Steve Poizner’s fault?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
There you go again, Jon, off the rails. By the way, Jon, don’t you take money from the Poizner campaign? Or do you give them free space at the top of your web page?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Aaron,
Here is a fairly balanced article regarding Poizner’s recent insurance law changes and how it affects rates:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/01/lz1b1coverage211352-costly-coverage/?uniontrib
September 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Aaron,
Here is a fairly balanced article regarding Poizner’s recent insurance law changes and how it has made it easier to increase rates:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/01/lz1b1coverage211352-costly-coverage/?uniontrib
September 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Sorry about the above duplicate response.
I will judge candidates by their actions instead of their words from now on since so many say whatever they think we want to hear to get elected:
Poizner contributed nearly $200,000 for Proposition 39, a successful 2000 ballot measure that lowered the threshold on local education taxes from a two-thirds vote to 55 percent. This is only one example.
http://www.mercurynews.com/sanmateocounty/ci_13209182?nclick_check=1
I am finding it difficult to buy into his new found conservatism.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I registered to vote as soon as I turned 18 and for the past 22 years have never missed voting in an election. Regardless of party or beliefs, IMO not voting for virtually your entire adult life means you didn’t care enough about your country to participate at the basic level. Then to give a run around answer the way she did is insulting.
I don’t know who I will vote for Governor but it sure won’t be Meg Whitman.