And she hasn’t even been elected yet! CalWatchdog has the story about Whitman’s secretive centimillion-dollar campaign:
“The Meg Whitman for Governor Campaign is like the Pentagon – or possibly even the NORAD command bunker – of political operations. Its headquarters in Cupertino is highly secured, with all access absolutely restricted. Staffers, except those specifically paid to deal with the media, are forbidden from talking to reporters. Even the vast majority of the 70-odd private consultants paid by Whitman for Governor refuse to say anything at all – even on background – about the inner-workings of what has to be the biggest, most expensive campaign in California political history…
The dollar amounts Whitman for Governor is paying to its legion of consultants and strategists are staggering. In just the four weeks between late May and late June of this year (the most recent campaign finance report available at the California Secretary of State’s office at press time), Whitman’s campaign paid $27,000 to the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, $15,000 to Mitch Zak (whose employer, Jeff Randle, was Whitman’s first consultant, having signed on way back in 2007), $15,000 to MB Public Affairs, $20,000 to Stutzman Public Affairs and $17,500 to Wendy Warfield & Associates.
Officials from none of those firms would comment for this story. And that’s a few of Whitman’s Sacramento consultants. Dallas-based Scott Howell & Co., which makes very slick campaign commercials, brought in $100,000 during that period. Fund-raising firm Blue Swarm of Westfield, Mass., earned $40,000. Whitman for Governor also gave $20,000 to Von Hart Films in Calabassas and $90,000 to Bonaparte Films of Los Angeles, all in the same period (none of these firms chose to comment for this story, either).
Keep in mind that’s just a month-long snapshot of a few of Whitman’s consultants. And the campaign is very sensitive about these massive dollar amounts. A perfect example of this is the campaign’s reaction to my attempt to reach Mike Murphy…
After noticing that Murphy is in charge of Bonaparte Films, which is cited above, I e-mailed Murphy to ask what sort of work Bonaparte – and he – were doing for the campaign. Murphy never replied, but within hours of my inquiry, Tucker Bounds, Whitman’s chief spokesman, e-mailed back.
“Mike Murphy mentioned that you were interested in making some inquiries of the campaign,” Bounds e-mailed. “Anything I can help with?”
After thanking Bounds for his prompt reply, I wrote back that I was merely trying to talk to Murphy about the work he and his company were doing for the Whitman campaign, and that I’d appreciate any help he could provide in arranging for me to talk with Whitman campaign workers.
Bounds never replied. And the tight lips and steely rejections have irked more than media.
In fact, at least some conservatives seem to be getting fed up with their treatment at the hands of the Whitman campaign. And a few are willing to go public with that resentment…”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Whitman has justly earned the wrath of KFI talk show hosts John Kobylt & Ken Chiampou, who have pointed out Whitman’s flip-flops on illegal immigration and vague posturing on California’s global warming law, AB 32, and the initiative on the November ballot to suspend it. (MP3, 0.5 megabytes.)
John & Ken despise the political views of Jerry Brown, Whitman’s Democratic Party* opponent. But he earns their grudging respect for being clear about what he stands for — greater union influence over government and other standard Democratic Party beliefs.
Whitman, on the other hand, hopes to sail through with vague and contradictory statements, along with a campaign dominated by ads and controlled events. One exception was Whitman’s appearance on the John & Ken show, under an environment controlled by J&K. The result: Whitman sounded evasive, as John and Ken hammered her on her doublespeak, flip-flops. and other inconsistencies. (MP3, 16 megabytes).
Listen to Meg Whitman’s repeated refusals to specify just why Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law won’t work in California. (MP3, 1.8 megabytes).
Whitman’s stock claim is that California’s geography is different from Arizona’s. While that is obvious, Whitman deliberately ducked saying how that would make Arizona’s law not work in California. The obvious conclusion is that is just an excuse Whitman’s political consultants concocted for her. The consultants know that most reporters don’t get beyond the stock claim in their shallow interviews. But John & Ken dug deeper, revealing the phoniness beyond Whitman’s facade.
Whitman’s political consultants shouldn’t get all or even most of the blame. They do what all too many political consultants do — stress victory over anything else, principles be damned. And Whitman wasn’t forced to choose them or her deceptive strategy. Whitman’s choices speak unfavorably about her lack of ethics and honesty — something that should inform your vote for governor. If Whitman will lie and deceive so casually as a candidate, she’ll probably do even more as governor.
The only reason to vote for Whitman is the hope that she couldn’t be worse than Jerry Brown, whose specialty and main goal in politics is spending other people’s money. At least so far, Whitman is spending her own money.
But Whitman is shaping up as another mealy-mouthed bumbling disaster like Schwarzenegger. California might be better off in the long run by letting Brown win. That way, the Democrats can take undiluted responsibility for the state’s accelerating decline. Then once the bankruptcy of tax-and-spend leftism is widely obvious, voters may turn to a more fiscally responsible alternative.
As the CalWatchdog article stated:
“There are conservatives, and not just social conservatives, who’d rather have four years of (Jerry) Brown in order to get eight years of a conservative afterward,” said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute, a Sacramento-based grass roots organization that lobbies on abortion, gay marriage and other social conservative issues. “There isn’t going to be much of a difference between Brown and Whitman. But you know who came after (former President Jimmy) Carter? Ronald Reagan.”
I’d just add that in addition to conservatives, some Libertarians, such as myself, find that reasoning compelling.
If Whitman wants to change this dishonest, mealy-mouthed and evasive picture she’s painted of herself, she’d better start now. She doesn’t have much time left.
*(A few hours after writing this, I added “Democratic Party” to Jerry Brown’s designation as Whitman’s opponent. This was to make clear that there are other opponents, such as Libertarian nominee Dale Ogden.)
(DISCLAIMER: As with all I write here, this is my personal opinion, and not necessarily that of my employer, the North County Times.)