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.
August 18th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Mike, if you keep this up, you will not be getting a Christmas card from Meg Whitman this year!
August 18th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Be nice to Meg, maybe she will give you some money.
August 18th, 2010 at 12:00 am
There is an old political dictum, “Some things are better said privately than put to type for the world to see.”
Mike! We have an election to win! Lay off until after the general election is over.
After that? Hey! Go get ’em! You are generally right!
Ernie Konnyu
Former Member, U.S. Congress
August 18th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Hummm… will we see the CRA hang Meg in effigy at the convention? Or maybe the CRA will ban her from the convention like they did Pete Wilson?
August 18th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Ernie you are right, we have an election to win. And being silent while resources are used in something other than beating Jerry Brown is not an option.
Bob, I had no idea Wilson was banned from a convention. I saw him all the time. Meg should be at the convention and have a clear message as an alternative to Brown.
Allan, If I got a Christmas Card I would sell it on Ebay to get the money Ken talks about.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:00 am
I seem to remember Pete Wilson’s goons banning young conservatives from the convention. Could that be the reason for Meg’s interest at the convention? Making sure those who would call her out for being a liberal are not allowed to participate?
August 19th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Mike, good idea.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
If the Calif. Republican part were of much relevance, neigher Meg Whitman nor little Stevie Poizner would have been dropped into the governor’s race, and instead a valid candidate that was on the party bench (so to speak) would have been at bat for governorship.
But the failed CA R party has sunk so low that “externals” like eMeg or Stevie get to play.
I’m voting for the pro-gun candidate, Jerry Brown. I’m tired of the CA R party running antigun candidates.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:00 am
“Jerry Brown would be a disastrous choice for governor”
Those aren’t my words. That’s from an official publication of Gun Owners of California this year.
I’ll trust their opinion as to who’s pro-gun.
August 24th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Evidently there are a number of blacklisted Young Republicans because of our earlier endorsement of her primary opponent and Steve Poizner staffers for petty retribution purposes, that have been told they “will never work in this town again”.
I know some of her staff and you would think they are bright enough to know what comes around goes around and often those have been famous last words.
Maybe their recent cash flow has blinded them but I have never in my life witnessed a Republican candidate run as internally divisive and mean spirited a campaign as Meg Whitmans team. Its as though they dislike conservatives and don’t feel they need their support because they will vote for her anyway given the alternative. I know some are good people and have stayed out of the bullying but its quite surreal. I’m very concerned about this tactic and long term strategy.