Please vote in the June 8th primary

\In California, the June 8th Primary Election is fast approaching. If you vote by absentee/mail ballot, then you need to mail your ballot in the next day, or, so; ballots have to be received by election day.

Among the more contentious races is between GOP rivals Meg Whitman, and Steve Poizner, who are vying to carry the Republican banner in the governors race. The winner will run against Democrat, and former governor, Jerry Brown.

I’ve lived in California my whole voting life, and this is one of the nastiest contests I’ve ever seen, and, I, for one, am already sick of the radio ads, TV ads, campaign mail, and, especially, the robo calls, (which I believe are counter productive). And there will be more of the same when the true election season begins after the primary. November is a long way off.

Meg Whitman, (in case someone lives in outer Mongolia and hasn’t heard), is a successful business person who is credited with growing eBay from a fledgling company, to the powerhouse that we know, today. You’d have to be from another planet to not have heard of eBay. She is obviously a successful business person, and she has an impressive resume, and she has accumulated impressive personal wealth. (Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Whitman

Steve Poizner is currently the Insurance Commissioner in California, an elective position. Poizner is also a very successful business person. His success came from starting companies, and growing them into successful enterprises. In the areas of success, and wealth, Whitman and Poizner are very equal. (Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Poizner).

In view of the massive financial problems that we are now having in California, I’m not sure I understand why anyone would want to be governor in such dire times. Certainly, since both candidates are wealthy, and successful, and enjoy impressive reputations, it can’t be out of a need for money, or status. I suppose it could be for ego gratification, or a power trip.

I don’t know what their personal motivations are for wanting to be governor of a State that is basically bankrupt, and broke in many ways. It is not going to be a pleasant duty, though I think it could be very satisfying if they are successful in saving California.

So, what are the difference between the two, and who would make the best governor ?

Meg Whitman accuses Poizner of being a liberal, and then has a list of sins that he has committed in his political career. She refers to him as just another Sacramento liberal, and tries to tie him to the current financial woes. And Poizner is having success painting her as being in favor of Obama’s amnesty intentions. He also has attacked various questionable incidents in her business career, which I describe, below.

Meg Whitman has her own liberal skeletons, too, and has donated significant money to liberal causes, but she just seems to be more conservative. Maybe it is her stiff demeanor.

A California voter would go insane if they try to make their decision based on all the charges, and counter charges. For example, Poizner admits sending money to Al Gore’s campaign; he says it was on behalf of his wife, who is a democrat; whatever. Meg Whitman was on the board of directors at Goldman Sachs, a company that actually profited from our financial collapse, and donated money to California Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer, etc.

So, which is worse ? So, who is the bigger demon ? You will go crazy if you try to keep score in this mess.

For the sake of argument, I’m going to concede that Steve Poizner is not the most politically conservative guy we could have as governor. He is not a conservative’s conservative. Let’s just say that 80% of what Whitman says about him, is true, and leave it at that.

I would still rather have Poizner as governor for the following reasons:

1) He is an experienced politician. Being governor of California is not like running a business. In the business world, the CEO commands, and directs, and either things happen, or heads start to roll. In politics, it doesn’t work that way; the governor has limited power, and he has to play politics in order to get things done. He has to schmooze, and cajole, and twist arms, etc, to get the support to actually get things done. Poizner is already a politician, and he knows how to play the game, and he knows the players.

We do not elect a dictator who simply takes office, and waves a their hand, and things start to happen. Good ideas don’t mean anything unless you have the skills to deliver, and I don’t believe Whitman can charm our legislators into doing her bidding.

We already know that doesn’t work. We thought Arnold could do it, and look what happened; we are in worse shape than when Gray Davis was governor. We would have the same thing with Whitman, and we would waste more precious years until the next election.

A great advantage of Poizner is that, in addition to his political experience, he is also an experienced business person; that is a bonus because we need some business savvy. Meg Whitman is only a successful business person.

Also, Poizner’s business experience involves from the ground-up creation of a successful business’s, while Whitman’s strength seems to be in her ability to manage and grow an existing enterprise.

Their respective business resumes are important because California has a serious anti-business climate, and it seems like Poizner would be the better choice of the two because he really knows the struggles of a start-up business, and how government can help, or hinder it’s success.

2) Incumbents are in the “outs”, these days. “Throw the bums out” is an often heard battle cry. I understand that sentiment, but I only agree with it on a selective basis, especially if the incumbent is a liberal Democrat. While we may not need incumbents, we do need folks who want to serve in public offices, and who have experience serving the public. Poizner has already shown that he wants to serve the public, and he has tried to do good. He even spent 2.5 million dollars of his own to help defeat Prop 93 in 2008, which would have killed term limits in California. Is this something a liberal would do ?

3) I attended a meet & greet with Poizner, and it was obvious to me that he loves California, and laments what it once was, and wants to restore some of our past “glory”. Education is a priority. He against amnesty for illegal aliens, and wants to take proactive steps to curb, and reverse illegal immigration, his logic being that if we remove the incentives, such as free schools, and welfare, etc, then they will stop coming. It makes sense.

==================

I never heard of Meg Whitman before she started running for governor. She just kind of appeared out of nowhere, with a wad of personal cash, and, I guess, the intent to spend her way into the governorship. According to recent reports, she has spent close to $ 90 million of her own money on the campaign.

I guess $ 90 million dollars is not alot to a billionaire, but, this is just for a primary election. If she were to win the primary, her final tally will certainly be over $ 150 million dollars. Is there a limit to what she will spend ? $ 200 million? $ 300 million ?

This is bizarre, to me… and it just seems to me that she feels she can buy the primary election, and, later, the general election. In fairness, Poizner has spent about a quarter of that, or about $ 22.5 million, of his own money, which is also a substantial amount, but, not unprecedented, and he has shown is willingness to spend his money for what he believes in, such as defeating Prop 93.

(This election year, in California, we seem to have more a battle of dollars, than values. This is not a good year for poor people. And it is bad for California, in general.)

Does Meg Whitman love California ? She stated that she moved away from California because: quote: (Massachusetts is ) '...a better place to raise the boys' than Southern California, she told the Detroit Free Press in 1995 about the move to Massachusetts." (ref: http://bit.ly/dfemYH)

I know this sounds chauvinist, but, I can’t think of a better place to raise kids, or to live; and I have lived in different locales, and different States. And that doesn’t mean that there are not plenty of great places to live; but, better ? No way. She doesn’t love California.

Will she make a good politician ? From what I’ve seen, she is not a people person, and she doesn’t even like the press. She doesn’t have a record of public service, and, she doesn’t deny that she didn’t even bother to vote for 28 years (at age 46). And she offers no explanation of why she didn’t vote; she just smiles contritely, and repeats her sin, and avoids any sort of explanation. I would like to hear her explanation; but it will never happen; I suppose she could never offer a good excuse. (ref: Whitman Faces Questions On Voting Absence At CRP Convention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSEqBqmLkVU
)

How can she possibly attack Poizner’s record, when she didn’t even vote ? While he was putting his record on the line, and subjecting himself to public scrutiny, she was busy doing nothing but serving her own needs.

I don’t know who is giving her advice, but I suspect that they have told her that silence, in the face of adversity, is best. She has taken the same tact when it comes to answering questions about her involvement with Goldman Sachs, and the eBay shareholder lawsuit that she lost, and had to pay $ 3 million dollars to settle. (ref: CA-Gov: Whitman Ties To Goldman Sachs Examined http://bit.ly/dt7mIf)

She claims to be against amnesty for illegal aliens, but it is a weak claim, because it is a “born again” response to a hot-button issue. She is now spending a fortune on ads trying to reassure voters that she really, really, really, is against amnesty.

==========

So, here in California, from a conservative point of view, we are faced with two imperfect choices for governor.

So the choice seems to be between a known quantity, Steve Poizner, who is an experienced and successful business person, and an experienced politician, and who has paid his dues, and shown that he does want to serve the public, and the best interests of California, and Meg Whitman, who is also an experienced and successful business person, who is not a politician, and who has never done anything notable to serve, or help California, who moved away from California, to Massachusetts, for a “'...a better place to raise the boys' than Southern California…”, and who didn’t even vote for 28 years.

I have voted dozens of times in my life, and I have never seen a perfect candidate; most often I’ve had to hold my nose, and make a difficult choice, and let nature take it’s course.

Warts and all, I’ll vote for Steve Poizner, and I’ll do my best to help him live up to my expectations.

And that is just my opinion.
Spencer Holly
www.angrycalifornian.com
0107