text:
Meg Whitman Had No Obligation to Respond to That Letter . . . But Why Not?
Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:52 am
The San Francisco Chronicle does the work the L.A. Times couldn't be bothered to do:
Lawyers said an employer's obligation upon receiving a no-match letter from the Social Security Administration is to check their own records for typographical or other errors, inform the employee that the records do not match and tell the employee to correct them.
"There is no additional legal obligation for an employer to follow up or respond to SSA with new information," said Gening Liao, a labor and employment attorney at the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, which defends immigrants.
The lawyers repeated the warnings in the letter that taking action against the illegal employee could have subjected Whitman to a lawsuit.
That this Is the case doesn't make it right.
There are two issues here.
The more urgent issue is political: to clarify that Whitman did absolutely nothing wrong under the law — even if she saw the letter. Which, there is zero evidence that she did.
The larger issue is what this all reveals about the federal government's lax approach to handling a mismatch. It is wrong that the federal government doesn't require the employer to tell the Feds: hey, I know you say there is no such number on file . . . but that's the number on her Social Security card.
Whitman's opponents couldn't care less about this issue, even as they cynically try to hang the controversy around Whitman's neck.
We must take the opposite view. We should defend our candidate against the false attacks — but also ask: why is the federal government so lax when evidence emerges that an employee is illegal?
And what can we do to change it?
304 Responses to "Meg Whitman Had No Obligation to Respond to That Letter . . . But Why Not?"
Your SF Gate link not working.
Here it is: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/01/MN931FME32.DTL
Dana (8ba2fb) —	10/2/2010 @ 10:05 am
well, my question, and i am really asking, is: is this the law today? I could have sworn a few years ago i heard of some tightening up on the no match issue. That is well after 2003, so it might be the case that there has been some tightening up. I honestly don't know for sure.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) —	10/2/2010 @ 10:14 am
So, they're raking Whitman over the coals for obeying the law. Her hubby informed the employee (assuming that is his handwritten notation, which I maintain hasn't been proven), which is what they were supposed to do.
Only a lefty would think that was wrong.
ConservativeWanderer (b8d454) —	10/2/2010 @ 10:26 am
Neither the Reps advancing the employer case, nor the Dems advancing the open-borders case, want the Feds to do anything about no-matches.
They have created the perfect bureaucratic grid-lock:
SSA sends a letter;
It is up to the employee to correct the situation;
Even if the employee is an illegal, the employer opens itself up to legal jeopardy if it takes action against the employee;
The SSA does not talk to either the IRS, or INS, or DoJ;
then, SSA demands an increase in their budget to hire more personnel to deal with the increased workload involved with "no match" letters.
The Kodiak Grizz (96ebfd) —	10/2/2010 @ 10:28 am
Forgot to change my handle.
AD-RtR/OS! (96ebfd) —	10/2/2010 @ 10:29 am
I am just laughing at this whole thing. Liberals, who couldn't wait to bash Arizona's tough new immigration law are now insisting that an employer should have done what they themselves are advocating against. The hypocrisy is so thick that you'd need explosives to cut it.
East Coast Chris (ded5f2) —	10/2/2010 @ 10:31 am
Comment by ConservativeWanderer — 10/2/2010 @ 10:26 am
Isn't that to be expected after DoJ's suit against AZ for enforcing Federal Law – and their non-action against sanctuary cities for flaunting Federal Law?
1984! meets Atlas Shrugged.
Precisely, AD.
Hey, I am new around these parts… would ya mind explaining your moniker?
"Another Drew-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks!"
AD…easier to type and was frequently used by other commenters in responding;
RtR..my basic philosophy;
OS!..goes back to when our host, during the '08 primary season, wanted to kick-start his site-count (whatever) by putting the phrase in everything – it turned out quite prescient.
Never, never, never, ever vote for a Democrat.
Dave Surls (75677f) —	10/2/2010 @ 10:48 am
Good enough.
The first part of my chosen alias should be easy enough to figure out… the second part is for three reasons… 1, I've lived all over the Continental US, from Florida to Washington State, from Massachusetts to Southern California (thanks to Lockheed, who kept moving my late father around when I was a kid); 2, probably due to #1, I still love hopping in the car and seeing what's over the next hill; and 3, even when writing or blogging or commenting or whatever, I have a tendency to wander from topic to topic.
Did not know that.
My name means 'Deplete the United States Treasury In NanoSeconds.'
Dustin (b54cdc) —	10/2/2010 @ 10:53 am
Which is why you voted for Obama/Biden!
If the government wants businesses to enforce the immigration laws, they have to give a business clear rules so that someone in Whitman's situation is not damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.
Had she fired Diaz because she had suspicions she was undocumented (as Gloria Allred told Greta last night) Diaz would have sued and liberals would go crazy over profiling.
But if she follows the instructions on the letter and asks Diaz to clear up the problem, she is accused of knowingly hiring an illegal alien and liberals act like she has committed the crime of the century.
If the government wants help stopping illegals from getting jobs, they have to have safe harbor rules that businesses can follow to protect themselves.
MU789 (2bacd0) —	10/2/2010 @ 11:06 am
MU, you're missing the point.
The Obamadministration and lefties in general–but I repeat myself–want businesses to be in a Catch-22. They are doing everything they can to destroy the private sector. Incoherent immigration law is just another way for them to do it.
But, Statists know (they just do) that everyone is guilty of something, and if they're patient, they'll discover the perfect "high crime and misdemeanor" to hang each and every one of us with (Lib/Leftist Presidents excepted).
Damn, I was going to cut the grass – but it's started to rain.
It doesn't rain in Southern California…does the CofC know about this?
I did not know that either. It certainly was prescient.
DRJ (d43dcd) —	10/2/2010 @ 11:14 am
It's all Booooooooooooooooooooosh's fault!
The Emperor (6e616b) —	10/2/2010 @ 11:39 am
It must be pretty embarrassing for the LA Timesites to be schooled by the SF Chronicle. Assuming, of course, that the LAT is capable of embarrassment.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) —	10/2/2010 @ 12:24 pm
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/24920/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/24920/11573/richmedia/MegWhitman_YouDontKnowMe.mp3
ColonelNikki (fb9945) —	10/2/2010 @ 12:28 pm
"…Assuming, of course, that the LAT is capable of embarrassment."
Brother Bradley…
In Intell training (in a galaxy far, far, away) they taught us to display analytical-assumptions in Red!
That statement would have to be in the brightest shade of Rosso Corsa.
AD-RtR/OS! (96ebfd) —	10/2/2010 @ 12:36 pm
The SSA obviously has no real interest in following through on this as long as their 14.2% is ontime.
They need every cent possible… god forbid we start firing illegals that use forged documents and give up money that is free of future obligations>
The DHS won't give safe harbor because they can't get the other federal agencies that prosecute "discrimination" and "privacy" as currently defined; to provide a framework for how safe harbor would look and work.
In other words the DHS is allowing that anti discrimination laws and privacy laws are so strict that there can be no safe harbor from them on this issue.
I posted this earlier and here is the relevant bit from the DHS' rescinding of it's safe harbor rules which effectively killed any enforcement and cooperation with SSA no matches:
With regard to the comment that DHS
provide a safe harbor from wrongful
termination and Privacy Act charges,
such action is outside of DHS's
authority. DHS, therefore, declines to
accept the recommendation."
Also, I am sure this has been said, but an ICE no match letter after an employee audit (usually conducted as a raid on the business) is a big big deal.
Call your employment lawyer (whom you already have on retainer anyway… it just is the way business goes these days) and get ready to write him/her a check for an exorbitant fee.
Then do whatever the lawyer says and let he/she fight it out.
SteveG (cc5dc9) —	10/2/2010 @ 1:01 pm
ConservativeWanderer #15 – "They are doing everything they can to destroy the private sector" – to be a little more accurate, just like their close cousins, the German Socialists in the 1930s and 1940s, the Obamadminstration doesn't want to destroy the entire private sector – just those parts of the private sector which do not choose to submit to the Obamadministration … what was the saying, in support of Industry back then ?
Oh, yes … Arbeit macht frei … as long as it is work for the State, that is …
Alasdair (205079) —	10/2/2010 @ 1:01 pm
In fact, had she gone ahead and fired Nicandra Diaz Santillan based on such a letter, she would have exposed herself to potential anti-discrimination violations, lawyers said.
Neo (7830e6) —	10/2/2010 @ 1:13 pm
Link fixed.
Patterico (0b896a) —	10/2/2010 @ 1:19 pm
Meg's ardent support for putting Meghan's coward daddy in our little country's White House was a greater attempt by far to subvert the immigration laws of America than anything involving Nicky I think
happyfeet (19c1da) —	10/2/2010 @ 2:01 pm
And by leaving it up to the illegal to "fix" the problem, chances are that most illegals will fix it by doing nothing, as this one did.
It's curious to me, though, that she kept the letter for years. Was someone advising her on how to set up Whitman if they ever fired her?
When people hire an employee and believe that their documentation is valid, of course they are going to view the arrival of such a letter as yet another glitch in the gov't system.
I hope the woman is deported. She stole a job for years that should have belonged to an American.
Good-bye, Illegal (e27326) —	10/2/2010 @ 2:07 pm
Mr. Feets – Since lying liar criminal illegal alien Nikki was not running and could not run for pezzydent it's a little bit apples and kumquat comparison, but I'll bet Barbara Boxturd and Jerry Brown would have cheered her on if she had run.
daleyrocks (940075) —	10/2/2010 @ 2:12 pm
I'm sorry Mr. wanderer but nutless Rs like Meghan's coward daddy are a really big part of the answer to the question of "why is the federal government so lax when evidence emerges that an employee is illegal?"
Mr. daley I think darling nikki has been very badly exploited and someone should take her for all you can eat shrimp at the lobster while it lasts.
Mr. Feets – Or that bottomless soup and salad bowl thinger at the Italian place. I hear those beaner peoples like to eat salad as long as they don't have to pick it themselves.
The Olive Garden – is that it Mr. Feets?
"Incoherent immigration law is just another way for them to do it."
Let's all get behind reform then. Though when even libertarian rand paul wants to tell business who to they can and can't hire, you can see why this is hard.
imdw (8a8ced) —	10/2/2010 @ 2:24 pm
Ahh, I see. "Nutless" R's. Since, by definition, females do not have the anatomical part you mention, then you must believe that all female Republicans are not worthy of support.
Of course, you can disprove it… you've been here far longer than I have, show me a comment here where you express support for a Republican woman.
ConservativeWanderer (b8d454) —	10/2/2010 @ 2:25 pm
I don't know about the Olive Garden very well my parents took me there once apologetically cause it was close to their hotel in San Francisco and we didn't have a lot of time.
There were lots of children there is mostly what I remember.
I honestly don't think I would take Nikki there unless it was really close to her hotel and we didn't have a lot of time.
you must believe that all female Republicans are not worthy of support.
most Team R hoochies either drag the party to the left (Kay Bailey, iCarly, assorted lobsterpot bimbos, Smeggy W, Lisa Murkowski, Princess Lindsey) or they're deranged pandering lifeydoodles like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann is my honest feel about Team R hoochies. It's strikingly not a lot different than how I feel about the nutless little boys of Team R.
I like Liz Cheney to pieces though. And even some of the lifeydoodles I wouldn't trade for magic beans. Marsha Blackburn is on record supporting Mr. Ryan's roadmap so she's okey dokey on my book.
Marsha Blackburn is worthy of support. Martha Roby in Alabama bears watching I think too if she wins.
So, prove to me that you've expressed support for them before today, Happyfeet.
You didn't expect me to take your unsupported word, did you? As the great Ronnie taught us, "trust, but verify."
GLORIA "ALLRAT": PROOF POSITIVE SCIENTISTS SUCCESSFULLY CROSSBREEDING MICE WITH HUMAN BRAINS
Gloria Allrat has filed a claim in a California court against Whitman and Harsh on behalf of Diaz Santillan, claiming the rich and powerful couple heartlessly "abused" her client by withholding overtime pay (Diaz Santillan was pulling in a cool $23/hour — good work if you can find it!) and not reimbursing her for mileage when Diaz Santillan used her own car to run errands for Whitman.
Wow! What a gulag-like existence that must have been for that poor wittle-bitty illegal housekeeper. Mexican slave smugglers could learn a thing or two from this ruthless pair.
Me thinks I smell a rat — or maybe it's a human-brained mouse. Can anyone say, "Deja vu?"
Why yes, this is the same Gloria Allrat who slung sewage at then-candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger back during the 2003 gubernatorial campaign. A that time, Allrat dug up a willing rube who falsely accused Ahnold of "outrageous acts" of sexual harassment while on a movie set. Allrat's alleged "victim" was a former bodybuilder who said the future Governator accosted her in a trailer, lifted up her shirt and took a picture of her breasts then posted the photo on the ceiling of the trailer for all to see. However, the specious claim was eventually summarily flushed down the proverbial toilet by the courts for the unsubstantiated turd it was proven to be.
http://heir2freedom.blogspot.com/2010/10/gloria-allrodent-proof-positive.html
heir2freedom (d9456e) —	10/2/2010 @ 2:50 pm
Mr. wanderer you are tedious I think you need a singings brb I will go get leighton
here you go Mr. wanderer
she has verve I think, no?
when the gloria
allred step in it she do
it with cloven hooves
ColonelHaiku (fb9945) —	10/2/2010 @ 2:53 pm
– Conservative Wanderer
Are people just… not paying any attention? Or something? Sympathizing with Patterico for rejecting litmus tests from a self-righteous asshole like Mark Levin, then turning around and trying to subject other commenters to litmus tests of their own?
Fuck off, already. Drop the stupid "you're a misogynist" kick. It's bullshit character assassination. I've never seen any evidence that happyfeet has any problems with women as a demographic; just problems with certain women, who are acting like weasels, and why shouldn't he. JD, who has actually met the guy, has defended him against this crap on numerous occasions. So why can't people just drop it, already?
Leviticus (30ac20) —	10/2/2010 @ 2:57 pm
No, Happyfeet, I mean, I want proof that you have publicly expressed support for a female Republican on this blog.
Your desperate spinning seems to indicate that such proof is not available, because you never have.
So, rather than continue to be tedious, I'll make this the last time I ask. If you don't provide it in your next reply to me, I'll consider it established that you have never expressed support for any female Republican here.
In other words, quit spinning and prove it, or confirm my worst suspicions about you.
hmmmm. okay.
here is my new happy song Mr. wanderer you want you can borrow it
ConservativeWanderer:
Happyfeet has previously expressed support for conservative women.
DRJ (d43dcd) —	10/2/2010 @ 3:04 pm
thank you thank you DRJ I thought I was gonna die I was so stultified and I couldn't think how to search for that
Thanks, DRJ.
See how easy that was, HappyFeet?
Makes one wonder why you just didn't provide the link the first time I asked.
I'm just a little pikachu I do my best
isn't that funny though how I've done a 360 on Marsha after I learned she supported Mr. Ryan's roadmap?
I think that itself might be a super great roadmap for conservative womens who want to get on my good side.
Greta Van Susteren did a masterful job of debating Gloria Allred on the issue.
Dennis D (e0b996) —	10/2/2010 @ 3:19 pm
Makes me wonder why you don't apologize for your unfounded insinuations.
Indeed. A frightful oversight on my part. Mea culpa.
Happyfeet, I hereby apologize publicly for assuming that your frequent anti-Whitman rhetoric indicated that you were hostile to all conservative women.
thank you Mr. wanderer no worries
I'm very hostile to Team R generally speaking these days. I'm fantastically disappointed cause of I see our little country at an existential crossroads and very few Team Rs reflect this concern back at me.
Why won't anyone pander to me I wonder. Except for Mr. Ryan and Mr. Daniels it's like Team R isn't interested in my support at all. Don't get cocky? Try don't get altogether indifferent to your staunchest fellow citizens what love the America even as she shrivels into a giant ball of fail.
This letter can be sent out for many reasons. It does notindicate someone is illegal. There are many, many reasons why the ssn and name do not match. There are other letters that go out to employers now and the employee has 8 days to get into a social security office to address the mismatch. Based on what I have seen the past 3 years, it is much more common for the mismatch to be due to a misspelling, a name change, or the employee not using the full name than anything else.
Karen Weigandt (f632a1) —	10/2/2010 @ 4:10 pm
We should defend our candidate against the false attacks — but also ask: why is the federal government so lax when evidence emerges that an employee is illegal?
I certainly don't regard Whitman as my candidate, not in the slightest. She's not running for California, she's running for Meg Whitman. She's Arnold in drag, someone who entered politics for her own ego. I voted for Arnold, and after that disappointment, I'm not inclined to vote for a similar candidate.
(Now Carly Fiorina, that's a whole nuther subject. While I don't agree with all she stands for, Fiorina would be a vast improvement over Boxer.)
I do agree that the deliberate laxity of the federal government on illegal employees needs to be ended.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) —	10/2/2010 @ 4:14 pm
I deleted a comment from Conservative Wanderer earlier that seemed like pure insult to happyfeet with no other redeeming qualities.
JD is right that everyone deserves protection from such pure ad hominems and not just the lefties.
Looks like CW has now gotten past his issue with hf for which I am glad.
Patterico (2307bf) —	10/2/2010 @ 4:14 pm
Bradley, please don't tell me you think Jerry Brown is a better candidate. Arnold is an actor. He's never fired anyone in his life. He lives for applause. I agree her ego is heavily involved. Why else spend so much money? But she is light years better than Governor Moonbeam.
Mike K (568408) —	10/2/2010 @ 4:20 pm
Hi Mike K.
Of course Jerry Brown's political ideas will hurt the state. He would be an utter disaster, and I won't vote for him. But I don't think Whitman would be a whole lot better. I think the signs are she'd be another bumbling Arnold.
If Brown wins, the state will slide toward the bottom faster than with Whitman. But at least the Democrats will have the blame, and perhaps the public will repudiate their policies. So this time around I'll vote Libertarian for governor.
Mike K and all,
OT, there's going to be a Tea Party event tomorrow from noon to 4 at the Oceanside amphitheater.
I am frustrated by the answers to the hosts' question:
"What can we do to change it"
Clearly we need to enviscerate the EEOC and that takes good bad and ugly candidates. Now. Because time spent entrenched means that a mere two year cycle will produce no change. A four year cycle? Maybe some movement.
Even after 8 years, I doubt that we can restore sanity.
I think 16 years of purists wouldn't stem the tide, much less reverse it
You paint quite the dismal picture.
Remember, however, that The Gipper managed to turn stagflation into a vibrant economy in less time than that. Not an exact parallel, of course, but there is still hope.
That was, in fact, Reagan's secret of his success–or one of them, at least–he always believed things could get better, and would, if people worked toward it.
It took twelve and a half years from Concord Bridge, to the adoption of The Constitution.
All worthwhile struggles take time.
If you can succeed at making things better, the time it took is worth it.
Remember, Confucius says that a journey of a thousand miles(sic) starts with but a single step.
AD-RtR/OS! (96ebfd) —	10/2/2010 @ 6:16 pm
most Team R hoochies either drag the party to the left (Kay Bailey, iCarly, assorted lobsterpot bimbos, Smeggy W, Lisa Murkowski, Princess Lindsey)… Comment by happyfeet — 10/2/2010 @ 2:43 pm
Huh?! So, on one hand, you don't like squishes, but, on the other hand, you favor a big squish similar to Laura Bush? DRJ's link above goes to a thread from May where she dismisses George's wife as a Democrat, while you say:
Laura is not a Democrat she's a happyfeet Republican. We are teh future!
Comment by happyfeet — 5/22/2010 @ 8:08 pm
HF, are you an ideological Sybil?
While I'm not big fan of so-called "centrists" — who are moderate only in the context of the midpoint of the socio-political spectrum shifting left in America over the past 50 years — I will support them for reasons of tactics and practicality. For example: California is so bogged down by voters who believe that liberalism is beautiful, compassionate, sophisticated and civilized, that Whitman is about the best I can ever hope for.
I do admit that if people in various parts of the US dislike the "Golden State" and would love to see it eunuch-ized, they should relish the idea of it becoming as leftwing as possible. After all, a California that becomes an off-shoot of Greece, Mexico and Spain — with a bit of France and Venezuela thrown into the mix — will be quite a hilarious sight to behold.
Mark (411533) —	10/2/2010 @ 7:24 pm
@Bradley,
Curious George would be a "vast improvement over Boxer".
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) —	10/2/2010 @ 7:30 pm
For example: California is so bogged down by voters who believe that liberalism is beautiful, compassionate, sophisticated and civilized, that Whitman is about the best I can ever hope for.
That's pretty depressing! But if enough Tea Party folks speak out like this one, I might just decide Whitman isn't so bad after all.
"I've done a 360 on Marsha"
Is happyfeet back where he started from or does he have more degrees in his circle than the rest of us?
Birdbath (8501d4) —	10/2/2010 @ 7:39 pm
Tanny O'Haley,
Heh. Did you see that Barbara Boxer hired day laborers to protest Fiorina?
I wonder how many of them are here legally?
Typically, this is the usual kind of Republican woman in the Senate,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Landon_Kassebaum, very nice personally
but useless for our purposes
ian cormac (6709ab) —	10/2/2010 @ 7:48 pm
I was glad to read that you feeling better each day and getting stronger. I hope it continues.
With that, I read the link you provided and as I see it, we're at the point with Whitman that to not vote for her is indeed guaranteeing a more rapid downward spiral at the hand of Jerry Brown.
I, too, was troubled by Whitman's apparent hypocrisy re illegal immigration and her attempts to pander to the Hispanic crowd with her twist on what she had been telling the rest of California. But in light of the maid mess, do you think that this situation has given her great pause and reconsideration of the speaking-out-of-both-sides-of-her-mouth strategy she was previously engaged in? Is it possible this mess hit so close to home that it will cause her to clean house a bit and get back on track?
Personally, I'm hopeful. I imagine it's far easier to pander to a group when the issue hasn't directly impacted a person and is just a somewhat abstract 'issue' rather than something concrete and tangible that has directly affected one's own life.
Dana (8ba2fb) —	10/2/2010 @ 7:50 pm
DRJ, while happyfeet has expressed support for conservative women, he has also verbally abused conservative women on this site, and not just for their political beliefs, as in the case of Sarah Palin…
Just for balance, of course….
reff (176333) —	10/2/2010 @ 8:38 pm
Dana, as always, thank you for your good wishes. I'm very grateful.
I certainly hope Whitman will reconsider how she's dealt with the public. Whitman is supposed to be a pragmatist. Then she should understand that her strategy of something-for-everyone and hiding behind talking points doesn't resonate with the public. For starters, Whitman should give the same message in English and in Spanish.
We have little idea of what Whitman truly believes or what she'd do as governor. Even with the acknowledged awfulness of Jerry Brown, I have extreme difficulty supporting someone like that.
I just found this funny.
http://www.slate.com/id/2269576/
When the elite start to ask why the elite doesn't understand what the elite are trying to do, they somehow blame the elite for the problem and look to the elite for the answer.
If the link doesn't work, it's because I'm not elite enough.
Ag80 (93f9d9) —	10/2/2010 @ 9:06 pm
Laura Bush doesn't seek power really she's just a classy Texas lady and I like her.
Hah yes I went in a circle Birdbath oops
oh jeez reff don't get me started on Sarah Palin
Interestingly, Bradley, the LAT has a report tonight on today's Whitman/Brown debate. Apparently it was very heated, tense and focused primarily on illegal immigration.
Brown accused Whitman of saying "one thing in Spanish, one thing in English" regarding government benefits for illegal immigrants. He noted that she has said she would have opposed Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot measure that would have denied taxpayer benefits for illegal immigrants, but ran radio ads during the primary that said those in the country illegally should not receive such benefits.
"This is a question about talking out of both sides of her mouth," he said.
Whitman said Brown was being disingenuous.
"I have been entirely consistent on my immigration stance from Day One of this campaign," she said.
Whitman was repeatedly pressed on whether, once the border is secured, she would allow a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants here; she refused to answer and instead repeated her campaign platform of securing the border and creating a temporary guest worker program.
way way way too focused on immigration if I were a hispanical person watching I would have been insulted by the obsessive focus on immigration it's like they think it's all hispanics care about
Sigh. I haven't been reading these threads much, because they make me sad. I have some sociopaths at work with whom to deal, so politics does not sooth me at present.
However, my good friend Bradley writes:
"…If Brown wins, the state will slide toward the bottom faster than with Whitman. But at least the Democrats will have the blame, and perhaps the public will repudiate their policies. So this time around I'll vote Libertarian for governor…"
This is the "the whole system will collapse and we'll be able to blame someone" philosophy.
I just don't understand this philosophy, but I have heard Bradley (and others) espouse it before. I wish them well, but history does not support their underlying assumptions, sadly. There are large differences between Whitman and (ugh) Brown. And in a close race, the third party vote simply helps the victor. In this case, Brown.
I don't understand helping Brown. And the idea behind Bradley's comment (who I have long liked and respected, let me hasten to add), that helping bad things happen faster to many people will help everyone "see the light" has never worked. But everyone can vote as they please, naturally.
It would be like people sitting out the 2000 race, because they didn't like GWB, and giving us that bizarre Al Gore as President. But they can feel good, I guess, that they didn't vote for GWB. Even though not doing so helped Al Gore?
I don't expect some of the folks here to agree with me, of course.
The difference for me is that I dislike all politicians. For me, the choices are not between good and bad. They are between awful and slightly less awful. And I think it has always been that way.
Just let me say it one more time: how did all those Perot votes work out for the nation? Eight years of Clinton.
Oh well. Here we go again. Four more years of Democratic follies. We Republicans and conservatives sure like to shoot ourselves in the feet.
Eric Blair (2e5551) —	10/2/2010 @ 9:48 pm
Thank you, feets…for making my point….
happyfeet,
Considering the debate was held at Cal-State Fresno where about 35% of the student body is Hispanic and in Fresno, half the population is Hispanic, and on top of the that, Whitman's maid situation just having occurred, it was bound to be the main focus of the debate.
I know that on campuses, the DREAM act is an enormous issue with students (and I assume their parents). I have friends who kid graduated from UCLA this year and they were pretty shocked to see an enormous amount of Hispanic students wearing placards around their necks stating, I'm an Undocumented Studentand the guest speaker was a columnist whose speech was predominantly about the need to pass the DREAM act.
I think it's a big issue in Cali, and as Whitman herself stated, she will need the Hispanic vote if she's to get elected.
Univision reaches millions of Latino households across the nation, and the fact that the candidates agreed to hold one of their three debates on the network showed the electoral importance of Latino voters. Latinos make up roughly one-fifth of the electorate in California, and Whitman has been aggressively courting them to help her overcome the Democrats' double-digit voter registration advantage.
"I cannot win the governor's race without the Latino vote," she said during the debate.
Dana (8ba2fb) —	10/2/2010 @ 10:06 pm
Rahm Emanuel is ineligible to run for mayor in Chicago
He leased out his home, moved to DC to be part of The Trainwreck, and now he doesn't meet the residency requirement for candidacy
Jones (72b0ed) —	10/2/2010 @ 10:11 pm
I just figure it doesn't do a lot of good to graduate if you don't have jobs – hopefully none of those grads were petroleum engineers cause boy did they emigrate to the wrong country.
happyfeet (19c1da) —	10/2/2010 @ 10:14 pm
What does it say about our politics that in a state as totally f***ed as California, the election might turn on one of the candidates' maids?
Forget the mammoth unfunded public pensions, the takeover of the statehouse by unions, the crushing tax burden, and the hostile business climate: Meg Whitman's maid is the burning issue.
does anyone have a sense of whether or not anyone gained or lost ground at the debate?
Dana,
Thank you for that post, especially this part:
That's the problem with Whitman in a nutshell. She likes to vote "present" and asks us to trust her to do the right thing. However, I do support the guest worker idea I support.
This other quote reveals great ignorance on Whitman's part:
John & Ken have flayed this argument into pieces. Since Latinos are less than 20 percent of likely voters, they can't possibly win an election by themselves. What about the other 80 percent?
Jones – He must have some kind of scam cooked up. After all, it is Chicago, so don't count him out.
daleyrocks (940075) —	10/2/2010 @ 10:29 pm
I think it's kind of … kooky cause the governor of California has no input on whether or not there will be a "path to citizenship" really and it really is best for America that it stays that way
Well, I *am* a member of a third party, namely Libertarian, so you should take comfort that I sometimes do vote Republican. For example, I held my nose and voted for McCain. But there, the stakes were much higher than in the CA governor's race. If Whitman and Brown were the major party nominees for president, I'd probably vote for Whitman.
That is part of my reasoning. I'd like the Democrats to own all the problems they create, including a fiscal collapse that Obama will have to bail out. The other part is that I have difficulty in principle justifying a vote for Whitman. I voted for the lesser of the evils the last time around, for Arnold. And we saw how that worked out. At least a vote for a Libertarian sends an utterly clear message about what I want as a voter.
I agree with that. Why is she wrong?
Patterico (c218bd) —	10/2/2010 @ 10:34 pm
I think it's pretty inarguable at this point that the Brown camp thinks the latino vote is *his* key to the governorship or they would have orchestrated a whole different stunt
True dat, as Eric likes to say. But on the state level, Whitman has been all over the map. She claimed to be "tough as nails" on immigration, but when it comes to specifics like passing an anti-immigration law like Arizona's, Whitman has two faces.
In Spanish, Whitman said she was against the Arizona illegal immigration law, and against Prop. 187 (which was passed in 1994 and is not being enforced due to a court decision).
In English, Whitman said the Arizona law was right for Arizona.
One of Whitman's stupidest arguments is that the Arizona law wouldn't work in California, because our geography is bigger. Whitman never explained how that's pertinent to whether the law would work. That dodge reeks of political consultant weenie-speak and is insulting to one's intelligence.
Unless Whitman cans the doublespeak, it is very unlikely that I'll be able to bring myself to vote for her.
Patterico,
My graf immediately after that explains why she's wrong.
I agree with your thinkings 100% I don't see any reason to go out of my way for Meg and Carly doesn't do a damn thing for me either… after McCain I need a break from voting for hyper-entitled establishment Team R douchebags
Here is something to consider before deciding to sit this one out. Whitman may actually fight hard against unions. If California is going to get back on track, this is a fight that must happen:
LOS ANGELES — Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman says the budget-cutting and union-fighting tactics employed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie provide a perfect "roadmap" for her plans in California.
Whitman says if she is elected in November, she will pursue a similar agenda. Like California, New Jersey is a Democratic-leaning state mired in financial trouble.
Whereas Brown views it differently:
Faced with the daunting prospect of being significantly outspent by his Republican opponent, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown spoke to a labor group Tuesday and urged them to go on the offensive.
"We're going to attack whenever we can, but I'd rather have you attack," Brown said at a gathering of the California delegation of the Laborers' International Union of North America in Sacramento. "I'd rather be the nice guy in this race. We'll leave [the attacks] to … the Democratic Party and others."
Carly is another story. Her victory would deprive Obama of a dependable vote in the Senate. That has national significance in curbing Obama's power.
I was in the audience for a Fiorina, DeVore, and Campbell debate, and thought Fiorina did acceptably.
she opposes prop 23 Dana… also her foundation bankrolls the Environmental Defense Fund. Hoochie wants a lot of things but one thing hoochie has a lot demonstrated she does not want is my vote.
I don't take her seriously. I think she's a vanity candidate and a lightweight – but you knew that when she volunteered to co-chair the McCain campaign.
Fiorina doesn't have a prayer of beating Boxer so I think it's a moot point. California isn't going to send a lifeydoodle to the Senate in 2010 I don't think. That would just be dogs and cats living together kooky.
Oh, c'mon, Dana. You and I know that Mr. Feet has sat out a lot of elections the last few years, despite all of his protestations. But that doesn't keep him from griping about Democrats!
And here we go with "hoochies" and similar classy stuff again. Oh well. Less and less my kind of site these days.
Probably my problem.
Eric Blair (2e5551) —	10/2/2010 @ 11:26 pm
I agree re Prop 23 and it's disappointing she's not firmly for it. However, she did have a caveat to her decision that might leave room for a little hope. And Jerry Brown is clearly against it as well as other issues that we are for, so maybe it's better to give her the opportunity to be persuaded:
My plan is to suspend AB 32 for at least one year while we develop the sensible improvements the law badly needs to protect the jobs of hard-working Californians while improving our environment," she said. "This is not an easy issue. While green jobs are an important and growing part of our state's economic future, we cannot forget the other 97% of jobs in key sectors like manufacturing, agriculture, transportation and energy. We compete for jobs with many other states, and our environmental policy must reflect that reality."
Boxer has an 8-point lead over Fiorina in one poll, which is not insurmountable. In another late September poll, the margin was 6 percent.
I can't take people seriously what use the phrase "green jobs" – she's one of those buzzwordy people I avoid in real life. Like the ones what talk about social media monetization and valuation. Like how much is a friend worth on facebook for a cpg brand. I tell you what it's not worth it's not worth my time, scooter, now get on with your bad buzzwordy self.
oh. But I'm heartened that if she wins that a certain amount of commonsense might tepidly prevail before she goes full on Arnold
you could be right Mr. Fikes but here in California I just don't feel that there's a wave coming… and I think that's what it would take.
California is monstrously cocooned. Still very daily show, and as long as gas prices don't spike I think it's mostly business as usual.
I can't take people seriously what use the phrase "green jobs" – she's one of those buzzwordy people I avoid in real life.
The problem with most "green jobs" is that they require massive government subsidies. That's because "green" fuels and energy are more expensive than their conventional counterparts.
Our modern industrial economy is built on cheap energy, which requires few people per unit of energy produced. The more jobs required per unit of energy, the more expensive it becomes, impoverishing the economy. So all this talk about a boost from "green jobs" has the economics precisely backwards.
I don't see how. How can she afford to alienate 20 percent of likely voters?
I see how a person could win without the Latino vote in theory. I mean, it's mathematically doable in theory.
But I don't see how Meg Whitman can win without the Latino vote.
Patterico (2307bf) —	10/2/2010 @ 11:58 pm
Eric Blair @ 77 & 98,
It's good to see you back. Your absence was noticed. I hope you don't stop commenting because as your #77 shows, you are thoughtful and sensible and have good stuff to put forth (that I agree with!). And I'll point out that Bradley took the time to explain himself, respectfully and without rancor. And although you don't see eye to eye, your exchange with him represents the best thing about this blog – disagreeing without it being personal, and maintaining respect for each other.
So instead of focusing on the personality of some commenters which might rankle you, give the same opportunity to them that you expect: to be listened to and have your pov and arguments seriously considered, focusing on the issue itself and not the personality (because God knows what others might think of our personalities!)
Best to you.
"she's one of those buzzwordy people I avoid in real life."
Sort of like people who are always talking about Team R or Team D? Yay Team!
daleyrocks (940075) —	10/3/2010 @ 12:09 am
Nobody is saying she should "alienate" Latinos.
And again, that point about 20 percent of likely voters being important (The actual number is 18 percent, but I rounded up) applies even more strongly to the other 80 percent. Whitman needs a good showing among the other 80 percent for the 20 percent to make the difference.
Whitman's statement implicitly assumes that only Latino votes are in play, and that she won't get any significant negative reaction from the other 80 percent for making them the focus of her campaign. There's also the risk that some Latinos might think she's pandering and resent it.
To be sure, black voters are not in play — they are solidly Democratic. But subtract them and you still have a solid majority of likely voters Whitman can't afford to alienate.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) —	10/3/2010 @ 12:16 am
"You gotta give her credit for holding her ground," said Fresno State's Cummins.
Cummins said Whitman's answers and stances will still appeal to certain segments of the state's Hispanic population who "had to do hard work to become legal citizens" and are resentful of others who may not have to face the same process.
I would like to know what percentage of the Hispanic voters fit this? We never hear much about them nor from them. Do they skew the 18%?
Interesting that those political races in which you actually have a vote command practical advice. Were a Christine O'Donnald running against Jerry Brown in your state, I'd doubt you would be running the same NYTimes stuff.
Slander is OK, as long as it does not personally affect you?
bains (c681be) —	10/3/2010 @ 2:53 am
What is this? ^^^ and what does it think it knows?
Icy Texan (a9ef4a) —	10/3/2010 @ 3:17 am
nothin' from nothin', but one must be citizen to vote and speak english to become citizen… so why a debate in spanish?
ColonelHaiku (fb9945) —	10/3/2010 @ 6:39 am
I agree that Whitman has been a squish on many issues, especially immigration and the whole green thing. But Brown scares me. He was the one who first permitted state employees to unionize. He is owned by the unions and, as the state sinks into bankruptcy, the unions will be the last to give up their lifeboats.
Mike K (568408) —	10/3/2010 @ 7:33 am
Remember guys, with brother, Whitman will be condemned for any misstatements of fact, however innocent. But he can make misstatements and it not reflect badly on him at all.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) —	10/3/2010 @ 7:38 am
Once again, you are spouting the left's talking points against Whitman with no critical thinking. You write:
> She claimed to be "tough as nails" on immigration, but when it comes to specifics like passing an anti-immigration law like Arizona's, Whitman has two faces.
> In Spanish, Whitman said she was against the Arizona illegal immigration law, and against Prop. 187 (which was passed in 1994 and is not being enforced due to a court decision).
> In English, Whitman said the Arizona law was right for Arizona.
Well, this is what your links have her saying about Arizona:
> Whitman was interviewed shortly before a judge issued a temporary injunction blocking much law of Arizona's law because of arguments it infringes on federal responsibility.
> Whitman was pressed for her opinion on whether Arizona, as a state, had the right to enact such a law to deal with the problem of illegal immigration.
> "I would let the law stand for Arizona," Whitman said.
So in the fuller context your own link makes it clear that she was talking about whether arizona's law was CONSTITUTIONAL. Not whether or not it was a good idea.
As for opposing 187, there is a Supreme Court precedent that makes at least some of that unconstitutional, and indeed much of it has been enjoined. Its not unreasonable to oppose a law found to be unconstitutional.
So in fact she did not say what you claimed she said, based on the evidence you provided. So are you a liar, like you keep insinuating her to be?
Btw, the difference between this and a flame war, is i am correcting you for your unfairness and inaccuracy.
In the last whitman thread you called whitman a liar without proof that she knew what the truth was. and this was just after you admitted you misstated the truth. you don't want to be called a liar when you misstate the facts, but you don't extend the same courtesy to whitman.
(R)'s are anti-illegal immigration and should not pander to the special interest groups that want to bring Aztlan into existence.
Hmmmmmm. . .
yeah, its a flame war.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) —	10/3/2010 @ 8:37 am
Trying to take Whitman down to saddle us Californians with Jerry "Old Coot" Brown? Are you serious???
The issue of public employee unions is indeed a good reason to vote for Whitman, but only if she means what she says. What evidence do you see that Whitman means it?
ColonelHaiku,
I'm a Californian too, and I'm certainly not suggesting we vote for Jerry the Job Killer. But Whitman's doublespeak repulses me. In such cases, I'm glad there's a third party option.
Brother at #118
Proving you can't understand sarcasm either.
But way to answer the charges.
So are you under the impression that "this does not violate the constitution" is the same as "this is good policy?"
Btw, you have been shown to have misrepresented what Whitman said.
Are you going to take it back or not?
Your character and your honesty is now in question.
Mr. A.W. look at the megster's sign in the picture… I think the facts support Mr. Bradley's contention.
happyfeet (19c1da) —	10/3/2010 @ 9:19 am
Good grief, Aaron Worthing, what's next? A showdown at the bicycle racks after school? No one's honesty and character is in question. Perhaps a re-consideration and read-up about Meg might give a fuller look at the candidate but do we really have to jump the gun and assume the worst about a valued commenter? Is there no benefit of the doubt? C'mon.
Anywho, Bradley, it's interesting to note that the Nurse's Union is in full attack against Meg.
SEIU is intimidating citizens at her campaign rallies.
And the Prison Guard unions are standing with Jerry Brown, not Meg.
Also, with her quote below, it's as much hope I think that we're going to be given that she will indeed help free Cali from being held hostage by the unions. But like any election, the voter is left making the decision whether to believe the claims or not. At least with Meg, there is the possibility because she is still an unknown to some degree. And it's a terrific sign that the unions are hostile to her – she must be doing something right.
With Jerry Brown, we already know (and see) from the union support he is receiving, that he will continue to support them.
Dana (8ba2fb) —	10/3/2010 @ 9:20 am
It's futile to persuade someone of a perceived error by impugning their character. So let's just agree to disagree.
I think it's a positive thing that meg is so openly willing to point the finger at unions. But she still has to negotiate with them and if you send a green jobs magic beaner to negotiate with unions the cow is good as gone I think.
Woman just don't got good sense.
In such cases, I'm glad there's a third party option.
But you do know that such a response is a case of pretty much throwing your vote away. I think the last time a third-party candidate received enough attention and support to make such a tactic seem not totally futile was Ross Perot in 1992.
I imagine Whitman is squishy on illegal immigration the same way that George W Bush was. As for Brown, he'd want to create a tax-supported air-conditioned bus service that would pick up the "undocumented" at the border and bring them into California—yea, a bit of sarcasm, but not really too much of a stretch.
Mark (3e3a7c) —	10/3/2010 @ 9:24 am
Your ambivalence isn't without merit. However, by contrast, Laura Bush, a "happyfeet Republican" (or what I'd call a squish to the hilt) does have the good sense you're referring to?
Dana and happyfeet,
Thank you. At my age, I really don't want to go back to high school.
Dana, your point about the nurse's union is a good one. Sometimes you can tell a lot about a candidate from their foes.
The only "green" California needs to worry about is THAT WHICH IS MISSING from the voters bank accounts
EricPWJohnson (f666b2) —	10/3/2010 @ 9:34 am
I think the only time you throw your vote away is when you don't vote. And practically speaking, my vote is not going to decide the California governor's race.
However, my vote will be counted in support of whichever candidate I cast it for. A vote for Whitman could mean many things, because her message is so diffuse. But voting for a Libertarian, a party with very specific beliefs, is a plain message of support for Libertarian ideas.
Politicians watch the vote count. If Libertarians receive an unusually large number of votes, the major parties will take notice.
Laura Bush is nice and she doesn't get all hung up on social issues – plus you never heard Laura yammer on about green jobs or bibble babble about climate change.
Mostly she likes to help make it to where the children can read the books.
Well, now there you have it. If you were not lying before, you are lying now. You have left that statement up, uncorrected.
There is no contradiction between saying Arizona's law is not unconstitutional and saying you don't want to follow their example. There are plenty of things you can do under the constitution that are unwise.
Meg sure isn't buying billboards to tell gringos she's dead-set against laws like Arizona's.
She's mostly just another pandering panderer what thinks it would be more better if she were in charge.
she's kinda like charles without the laughtrack
A.W.
I am going to delete every future comment of yours in this thread that accuses Bradley of lying, or that insults him personally rather than simply addressing his arguments. You should have more sense than to make negative comments about the honesty of someone with such an unblemished track record for honesty. Tone it down, immediately, stick to arguments, and describe them as wrong and not "dishonest."
Patterico (c218bd) —	10/3/2010 @ 9:55 am
You're right, the Libertarians do have specific beliefs.
Among them, at least if I am reading the Libertarian Party Platform of 2010 correctly, are completely open borders, allowing people like Nicandra Diaz Santillan to cross freely and seek employment, to wit:
Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human
as well as financial capital across national borders.
We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment.
From points 3.4 and 2.7 of the platform, respectively.
Therefore, if you are a Libertarian, you can't have any problem with Meg Whitman employing an illegal, or Nicky Santillan for crossing the border and seeking employment.
Is that, in fact, your position?
ConservativeWanderer (b8d454) —	10/3/2010 @ 9:59 am
Eric Blair,
I like having you as a commenter and I like having happyfeet as a commenter, even though he perplexes me at times. My suggestion #1 would be to just ignore him. If this is not feasible, my suggestion #2 would be to learn how to implement that script by which you don't see people's comments. It seems to me you might benefit from that. I could try to put you in touch with Stashiu or someone else who has successfully used it.
Whitman's statement implicitly assumes that only Latino votes are in play
I don't agree. I think it means what it means: she thinks she can't win without a sizable percentage of that 18 percent — an 18 percent segment with which she has done well up until now.
I just think she's stating a correct political reality.
Patterico (c218bd) —	10/3/2010 @ 10:06 am
did you see that california under Arnold wants to raise corporate taxes while unemployment is over 12%?
happyfeet (19c1da) —	10/3/2010 @ 10:06 am
Patterico: I also would like to be relieved of having to glimpse happyfeet's misogynist drivel. The term "Hoochie" is especially offensive. Please put me in touch with someone who can provide the required script. Thanks.
Old Coot (93a74d) —	10/3/2010 @ 10:07 am
the remaining shortfall be closed using federal funds and with accounting gimmicks
that seems like a powerful argument against putting a Team R person in the Senate who would be responsible for begging for monies for her improvident state – let Team Socialist do the begging – it's very damaging to the Team R brand when they do that sort of thing I think
here you go Mr. Coot
oh hey… silver lining? this seems like it might could have significant national repercussions
One person briefed on the budget said that legislature has agreed to the pension overhaul, but that it must be approved by voters in a ballot measure that unions are likely to oppose.
Does anyone know what bains is talking about?
And practically speaking, my vote is not going to decide the California governor's race.
Bradley, I'd feel more easygoing about your contention if the state weren't so heavily leftwing. IOW, any voter who is even a bit moderate or certainly conservative counts more in Calif than he or she would in a state like, say, Utah or Texas. A non-liberal resident in the "Golden State" is increasingly becoming a rare species. That's why I theorize Calif is going to end up like a northern version of Mexico, mixed in with a bit of the sloppy-liberal atmosphere of a Greece, France, Spain and Venezuela.
Laura Bush is nice and she doesn't get all hung up on social issues
happyfeet, I can tell you lean left when it comes to certain social-cultural issues. Nothing wrong with that. It's just that I then find it amusing when you berate certain Republicans for being squishes.
Mark (3e3a7c) —	10/3/2010 @ 10:20 am
Milhouse wrote an ignore program for unwanted commenters. I can't assure you it works since the website migrated to the new host but it should and I trust Milhouse's work.
We should defend our candidate against the false attacks
Wow! At least the gloves are off. Even karl's Republican Party hackery comes more subtle than this.
Still, you are confusing a moral obligation with a legal obligation. Voters won't make that distinction.
timb (449046) —	10/3/2010 @ 10:26 am
We don't need Jerry Brown and we don't need Barbara Boxer.
ColonelHaiku (fb9945) —	10/3/2010 @ 10:27 am
bains is just another "don't rock the Team R boat" conserva-troll*, accusing you of throwing O'Donnell under the bus.
[*Levin listener]
Icy Texan (ec9185) —	10/3/2010 @ 10:30 am
I think it means what it means: she thinks she can't win without a sizable percentage of that 18 percent — an 18 percent segment with which she has done well up until now.
I agree. But a sizeable percentage could be 30 percent. It doesn't have to mean a majority.
And I still think Whitman doesn't understand that the way in which she's courting Latino voters can hurt her with the other 82 percent, because it looks like pandering. With our wired world, anything Whitman says — even in Spanish — will get out to the public as a whole. As a former eBay CEO, Whitman should understand this.
I do NOT lean left on social-cultural issues Mr. Mark. I lean towards freedom and towards a large emphasis on the individual liberty of the individual and towards a diminution of the role of government in the life of that individual.
I'm practically the second coming of Reagan.
COMMENT WARNING: Repeated readings of timmah's #149 will cause a drop of at least 10 points of IQ!
My wife is Mexican was here illegally and became a citizen under the last amnesty.
She is part of the subset of latino voters who will vote for Whitman.
She is appalled at all the crazy spending, the wasteful programs and handouts.
She wonders what the problem is with this housekeeper who got $23 an hour which is about double the going rate and who was treated well.
She understands why Whitman had to fire the her.
We were talking about it and she thinks the woman is a horrible person, for being vindictive over losing a job for being illegal.
We were speculating on how much money the housekeeper was offered to turn on Whitman and wondering how she could be questioned under oath, and whether paying an illegal alien to make accusations is in effect hiring an illegal.
Is she being paid under the table?
SteveG (cc5dc9) —	10/3/2010 @ 10:39 am
Comment by happyfeet — 10/3/2010 @ 10:35 am
— Coming soon: The unexpurgated WH tapes of the Reagan years. Hear Ronnie saying, "Get that hoochie Thatcher on the line!"
tim timmahtim tim
timmahtim tim tim tie-yurd
like leaves fall in Fall
ahnold wont be bahck
let him retire with skipper
wife Maria Ssssssss
It's about capitalism, you True Conservatives.
Basically if you knew anything about statistics, you'd know you don't have a sample size worth drawing any valuable conclusions from when it comes to-how were they referred to again-oh that's right-
*team R hoochies*.
Here's the merriam webster defintion for that–
hooch·ie noun \ˈhü-chē\
Definition of HOOCHIE
slang : a sexually promiscuous young woman
Examples of HOOCHIE
Origin of HOOCHIE
perhaps from hootchy (as in hootchy-kootchy exotic dance)
First Known Use: 1991
Anyone who values capitalism, over meaningless* hoochie* analysis can read this article-
Golden State Outsourced by Boxer
Stuxnet Worm (565543) —	10/3/2010 @ 10:49 am
Fighting a dishonest deceitful smear is "taking the gloves off" ? Oh, Rove. And, Bush. And, Cheney. And, Kyoto. That is all.
JD (26cdc0) —	10/3/2010 @ 10:55 am
Ugh-obviously I have a love/hate relationship w/cookies.
Last comment should have posted under this name.
madawaskan (565543) —	10/3/2010 @ 10:56 am
Laura Bush supported many admirable causes and she always did it in a gracious way. However, with the exception of immigration, I've always thought she played a role in pulling him to the left on social issues — positions that often caused him problems with his conservative base. In addition to her liberal stance on many social issues, Laura Bush also had an impact on her husband's foreign policy and war issues:
Just as it was acknowledged that she had a great personal influence on his earlier decision to stop drinking alcohol, the President later disclosed that she also successfully urged him to reconsider his rhetoric regarding the Al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden after declaring that he would find the man "dead or alive."
Laura Bush later described her husband's comment as unfortunate Wild West language.
As for me (and I suspect this is true for other conservatives), I liked Bush best when he bluntly spoke his mind about the War on Terror, not only on that occasion but also at Ground Zero when he told Americans the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. In fact, I can't recall a single occasion after his "dead or alive" comment when Bush went off-script with his war rhetoric, and there wasn't much talk about winning either.
DRJ @ 148: It worked fine for me…thanks.
My pleasure, Old Coot, but Milhouse deserves the thanks.
DRJ – I can't tell you how good it is to see you here.
Gunga la dunga
AW, to question Bradley's honesty is just going to lead to questions regarding your own integrity at this point. Just drop it, please.
Dmac (84da91) —	10/3/2010 @ 11:39 am
BTW, having had the opportunity to know Bradley on a more personal level, I can tell you that the man is not capable of stating a lie or fabrication, no matter how you spin it.
This will always be my favorite place on the internet, daley, not only because of Patterico but also because of people like you.
A.W. – I don't see your point. Bradley's links in #92 support his argument, not yours. Whitman said let the law stand for Arizona, but it's not right for California. She's against it for California and her Spanish language billboards say so.
I don't, however, extend her argument to the point where Bradley takes it to the point where she is being wishy washy on immigration. I fail to see that connection.
"you are confusing a moral obligation with a legal obligation. Voters won't make that distinction."
I think when it comes down to the personal level one has a moral obligation toward the human being rather than a big government cluster*bleep*.
What if Whitman believed the letter meant the maid was illegal and then fired her… only to find out that the SSA was wrong?
I think the highest obligation would be to require the big government goat romp to offer up proof positive before destroying a persons's livelihood
over some nonsensical letter
Aaron left a comment that violated my previous ruling. He doesn't seem to understand who is in charge of this blog. He is welcome to leave the same comment attacking Bradley's argument. But to claim that he "stands by" his previous accusations of lying on Bradley's part ignores that I stand by my statement that I won't permit that from him.
Let him provide his evidence without the personal observations, or if he is not capable of that, stop addressing Bradley on this issue period.
I don't know how much more clear I can make it.
The imperial courts have crippled the law. Judges, unelected and untouchable ( in the case of Federal ) or nearly so ( for the State ) find "rights" in the Constitution for favored groups that limit the universal rights for everyone. We cannot enforce immigration law because some Judge has a crisis of conscience about "little brown people" and his or her superiors won't slap them down for fear of being called racist. We cannot follow up on the Social Security mismatch. We cannot deport even admitted illegal aliens who commit criminal acts without tying ourselves in knots. We cannot even protect the sanctity and security of elections because some protected group might feel bad.
We have at least a million people on the voting rolls in California and at least five million nationwide that are dead, imaginary or non-citizens. They are protected by the same Judges who are appointed by the Democratic and RINO politicians that they "vote" for.
To answer your question, because a politically activist Judge said so.
Ken Hahn (63848f) —	10/3/2010 @ 11:55 am
I think she's being awfully wishy the issue would go away
I am going to reproduce the part of Aaron's comment that did not violate my rule:
This is his words:
But if you follow the link, its a complete misrepresentation of what she said.
She only said that Arizona's law was constitutional, and that she didn't want that law in California. She never once says that Arizona has a good idea.
I corrected him and he refused to acknowledge he was wrong. I gave him two chances. And this after saying in the last whitman thread that she was somehow a bad person for being mistaken about whether HER HUSBAND saw the letter that started this thread.
[Unnecessary statement deleted by P.]
And the comment for reference is here: http://patterico.com/2010/10/02/meg-whitman-had-no-obligation-to-respond-to-that-letter-but-why-not/#comment-706086
Or comment 92, if you would rather just scroll up.
See how easy that was, Aaron?
Note: it is fine to say Bradley misrepresented something, if you believe that and you can back it up. Calling it a lie, or a knowing misrepresentation, is not permitted on this thread, as it goes to the person and not the issue — and I won't permit it given who we're talking about here.
Fair nuff, its your blog.
And your edited reproduction makes my point clearly enough.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) —	10/3/2010 @ 12:45 pm
I lean towards freedom and towards a large emphasis on the individual liberty of the individual and towards a diminution of the role of government in the life of that individual.
But, hp, on certain issues there is a fine line between libertarianism and garden-variety liberalism. By the same token, I will admit there also is a fine line between so-called centrism (or "center-rightism") and conservatism. So even though squishy Republicans can drive me nuts, I'm not as much into their ideological purity as you appear to be.
Mark (3e3a7c) —	10/3/2010 @ 12:50 pm
Patterico, daleyrocks and all, thank you. For you all, I'll explain one of Aaron's mistaken "charges":
She didn't *only* say that. I directed readers to a quote of Whitman in the article's second graf:
"You know, I'm running for the governor of California so I had to make a decision," Whitman said. "Does the Arizona law make sense for California? And I have said no, I don't think the Arizona law makes sense for California because we have a much bigger state with much bigger geography."
I stated my view of that argument as follows:
Now if Whitman has explained just how California's bigger geography makes the Arizona law unworkable, I'll cheerfully apologize.
Now that you've answered Aaron, perhaps you'd address my query in #138?
Bradley – I just listened to the John and Ken podcast you linked in the other thread. Apart from their propensity to interrupt and talk over Whitman and ignore what she actually says, U think she handled herself well, while they acted like jerks. I'm not familiar with their show, so maybe that is their normal routine.
What she said is consistent with the quotes you provided above. For some reason John and Ken believe AB 1070 has something to do with securing the border, which Whitman mentions is her main goal early on and says she intends to send the National Guard to the border. John and Ken talk over that. AB 1070 has nothing to do with securing the border. She says she is for states rights, which means Arizona should be able to do what it wants and California should be able to do its thing. She has a plan for California that John and Ken just don't want to hear because they are in love with AB 1070. John and Ken basically harass her for the whole interview because they have made up their minds they are not interested in what she has to say.
It's a completely one sided interview, but Whitman holds her own and I don't see the contradictions you mention. I also fail to see the issues over the housekeeper matter which concern you.
Meg didn't contradict herself.
I keep trying to find it, and wind up with things like "Now if Whitman has explained just how California's bigger geography makes the Arizona law unworkable, I'll cheerfully apologize."
OK, she said Arizona was doing its own thing, and could do it legally, and she wouldn't do that in Cali.
She looks pretty good to me in that interview. I think Meg is right that California's particulars, not limited to geography, make it far more difficult to enforce.
I will add, a lot of illegal immigration in California will be unstoppable due to the fact that California has a huge coastline. That alone is one obvious factor in its geography that should be part of a decision to implement any illegal immigration measures. It's pertinent to whether the law would be effective, IMO. People can disagree on that, but it's moot, thanks to the DOJ.
Meg is not my ideal candidate, but I'm just not seeing the scandal here. I'm impressed that she handled that interview as well as she did.
Dustin (b54cdc) —	10/3/2010 @ 2:35 pm
Though Bradley is right that people have to be very careful, thanks to new media. In this case, she didn't do a thing wrong, but even then, it's easy to get the impression she's saying different things in different languages for some dishonest reason.
I don't think that's fair, but politics isn't fair. If she were actually saying contradictory things, she'd be toast, and even just saying different things (perhaps tailoring her message to different groups) comes across as pandering.
– Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.
That's exactly what I thought when I read the article – "it wouldn't work because of, um… uh… our bigger geography. Yeah, that's it."
Dumb. Dumb, dumb answer. Weasel answer. What does that even mean?
Also, Whitman is quoted as saying "I would let the Arizona law stand [in Arizona]", while one of her Spanish language ads claims that she opposes both the Arizona law and its California equivalent – so there's dishonesty on her part right there.
"while one of her Spanish language ads claims that she opposes both the Arizona law and its California equivalent"
Leviticus – Letting the Arizona law stand is because she believes in states rights, she opposes the Arizona law for California because she believe she has a better solution. I fail to see the contradiction.
daleyrocks,
John and Ken say they have to interrupt and talk over politicians like Whitman because they filibuster and don't answer the question. That is how they handle someone who they think isn't being forthright. Whitman gave canned responses, and J&K aren't satisfied with those. They are polite to people who answer questions directly.
J&K are careful with their facts, and often correct the errors in MSM stories. Here's an example.
AB 1070's connection with securing the border works in multiple ways.
– One, it gives law enforcement officials the defined power and permission to apprehend illegal immigrants on reasonable suspicion.
-It serves notice on illegal immigrants that Arizona doesn't want them there.
-It's designed to help federal immigration officials do their job, the opposite of a "sanctuary city."
Regarding the housekeeper, I've pointed out that Whitman issued a blanket denial of having seen the letter, explicitly including her husband. Then her husband said it was possible the handwriting was his. Later on, Whitman herself said her husband might have seen the letter.
Of course, Whitman might have been honestly mistaken. But changing her story after the letter was produced didn't make her look good.
"… illegal immigration in California will be unstoppable due to the fact that California has a huge coastline…"
Yes, it is undeniable that the Coast Guard is completely incapable of monitoring, intercepting, and taking into custody, those who would violate our shores.
Why, just the other day, they failed to stop a boat-full of illegals from coming ashore in San Clemente, where the Border Patrol (probably from the nearby station in San Onofre) was waiting to take them into custody.
This epidemic of smugglers using our extensive sea-shore for their nefarious activities is out of control…
Oh Wait, I think that was the first reported instance in several years…
but, wait…
the cartels are getting submarines to smuggle in dope…
oh, they intercepted them too.
Damn, it's just so unfair, using radar and satellite imagery to catch smugglers…
sort of takes the romance out of the old rum-runner battle against the Revenuers.
Why can't we go back to those glory days of yesteryear, when a lone individual with a surf-board could smuggle in a small load of pot/coke from Playas de Tijuana to Imperial Beach…
Oops, they caught him too (eventually).
AD-RtR/OS! (b5fc01) —	10/3/2010 @ 3:04 pm
I guess Bradley isn't going to answer my query at 138.
Therefore, I have no choice but to assume that Bradley does believe in open borders, as well as the "right" of illegals to get employment here.
At least now we know where he stands.
BTW, that's AZ bill SB-1070!
– daleyrocks
I understand the distinction you (and a couple of others) have been making, but I'm not talking about any potential California policy – in re: the Arizona policy, she says both that she "opposes" the law, and that she would let it stand (if she were in a position to affect it, presumably). That reeks of bullshit.
Bradley, perhaps her husband just never mentioned it to her because it was no big deal? I don't see every piece of mail that comes through my house nor does my husband. Which ever one of us gets the mail out of the box that day generally deals with it, and if it's seemingly insignificant mail, there's really no reason to mention it. That is not unusual.
So if that's the reason, then what you refer to as changing her story after the letter was produced was simply telling the truth upon discovering her hub did indeed see the letter. No bogeyman there.
ConservativeWanderer,
If you want an answer, a polite reminder will get results.
– ConservativeWanderer
Again with the litmus tests…
You do realize that someone can be a Libertarian without adhering to every aspect of the Libertarian Party Platform, right? You don't actually have any idea what Bradley Fikes thinks on this issue, do you? You don't get to treat your (potentially mistaken) inferences as facts.
I made an honest attempt at that in comment 179. It didn't seem to get your attention, so I tried again, slightly more forcefully.
"AB 1070′s connection with securing the border works in multiple ways."
Bradley – Apart from a deterrent effect, the ways you mention are immigration enforcement after the fact, not actually securing the border before the illegal act takes place, which I believe is the way most people view "securing the border."
You have listened to John and Ken before, I have not. I was merely giving you my reaction podcast, which was much different than yours. It was an attack interview which displayed much ignorance on the part of John and Ken but did basically nothing to discredit Whitman.
Bradley, I think this letter and housekeeper story will hurt Brown and Allred more than Whitman. She has to keep tying it to his campaign, which I understand she did in the debate. I think his response, which happened 7 years ago, was perfectly proper, assuming it is his writing. It is interesting that the housekeeper kept it.
By "his" I obviously mean the husband.
No bogeyman is needed. One can just assume Whitman was honestly mistaken and the letter refreshed her memory. But at the very least, Whitman was still careless. She would have been better off saying she and her husband have no memory of such a letter, but can't rule it out.
I'm taking Whitman's statements literally. When she denied her or her husband saw the letter, I read that as a denial. One could assume that Whitman really meant to say she and her husband didn't remember the letter, instead of denying they had seen it. I think that such an approach puts too much of a burden on the reader, when the burden of clear communication should be on Whitman. Let her explain the apparent contradiction.
But, but, Brother Bradley, we all know that words are only meaningful in the use, and meaning, of the user.
It is up to you, the listerner/reader, to devine the exact meaning, not for her to explain it to you.
I just love Post-Modernism!
I guess I don't see it as a big deal, not even careless. In the everyday minutiae of life, one seemingly insignificant letter is, well, just that. Insignificant.
And I don't see a contradiction either. She didn't see the letter, she didn't know her hub had seen the letter so just assumed he hadn't either. Big deal. It doesn't speak to credibility but to a busy home life, busy work life, and a life where there are so many criticals to focus on that things like this – a letter sent a long time ago – don't get a placeholder.
Now Prop 23 is an entirely different matter altogether…
We'll have to agree to disagree on John & Ken. They are extremely well-informed about issues, including Whitman and the other candidates. I've followed this election cycle closely. J&K make it clear that when they interview politicians, they're looking for a real interview, not just the usual talking points. That kind of an interview wouldn't tell listeners anything they didn't already know.
It took a while for me to get used to their format, because J&K (especially John), engage in a lot of histrionics. But underneath, there is solid information. I linked earlier to a post of mine about the controversial cancellation of a trip to Arizona by a high school in Temecula. According to an Arizona tourism official, the band director said he was protesting 1070.
J&K broke this story while in Arizona, and led it all the way. They pointed out contradictions in the school district's story that the newspapers overlooked, such as multiple conflicting explanations for the cancellation. (They wanted to compete closer to home to save money, they wanted to go to a competition in Ohio, they wanted to go to the London Olympics in 2012). The other reporters simply accepted whatever the school district told them.
Federal cooperation is needed to secure the border. AB 1070 is Arizona's attempt to do what it can on its own, by reducing the motivation to illegally immigrate. It's jobs that bring illegal immigrants. If they feel more vulnerable to deportation in Arizona, or think they'll a harder time finding work, they'll go elsewhere.
I agree with Mike K, this should end up helping Whitman. She didn't do anything wrong.
Vivian Louise (c7cad6) —	10/3/2010 @ 4:22 pm
What is AB-1070?
It would be nice if that were the case — good payback to Allred.
Again, by itself this is a minor story. I'm looking at it in the context of Whitman's other flaws — Prop 23 being a good example. Sorry to bring in John and Ken, but they pointed out why Whitman's stands on Prop 23/AB 32 doesn't make sense:
(1) Whitman said she probably would have vetoed AB 32, the law Prop. 23 is targeting.
(2) Whitman opposes Prop. 23, which would merely suspend the law, not repeal it.
(3) Whitman said she'd invoke a year's moratorium on the law.
Gack.
My typo for Arizona's illegal immigration law, SB 1070. Mea culpa.
It doesn't speak to credibility but to a busy home life, busy work life, and a life where there are so many criticals to focus on that things like this – a letter sent a long time ago – don't get a placeholder.
The problem is that excuse can apply to any instance in which Whitman denies something. Whitman should be held to a higher standard. She's a high-powered professional who built a giant company, and wants to run the largest state in the Union. Let's not condescend with the soft bigotry of low expectations.
If you've noticed, I'm replying to a lot of queries this afternoon. I am sorry to have overlooked yours, but you chose the wrong way to get my attention.
I'll reply in a little bit.
Then Meg should explain why that is so. To my knowlege, she hasn't.
Daley,
I frequently turn in to J&K but it's not unusual for me to turn to another station mid-interview out of frustration at their bad behavior.
If a host invites someone on their show, at the least, common courtesy should prevail – whether or not the guest refuses to be cornered. I'm old school and think quiet thoughtful confrontation and persistence yields more results than yelling over a person and belittling them. No one wins then and you just end up with more Ed Schultz types fouling up the airwaves.
I understand their frustration w/Whitman because they see themselves as absolutely right and her as owing an explanation. Unfortunately, they are so rigidly black and white, that they can't abide any nuanced gray areas, or perhaps even consider that they might be misconstruing or misinterpreting their guest.
That's OK, Bradley.
You needn't reply if I've committed a faux pas.
We'll just let everyone draw their own conclusions from what has been said in this thread. I'm sure you have nothing to worry about in that instance.
Yet another example of the voters of a State being given craptacular choices. The political class continues to fail the people that they are supposed to represent.
JD (467394) —	10/3/2010 @ 4:51 pm
The Coast Guard should shoot the pirates..
Your premise is incorrect. Advocating repeal of certain laws is not the same as advocating violation of those laws.
I do not favor illegal immigration. I favor an expanded guest worker program, under which non-citizens can work here legally.
Wanderer – Brother Bradley, C.O.R. is a solid upstanding gentleman of the highest order. I don't necessarily agree with him on this topic, but I respect him muy mucho.
That was for the pirate thread
here is a song about drinking the alcohols… particularly in the midwest
If all John & Ken did was act rudely and outrageously, I'd not listen to them. But there is a real message under the outrageous antics. Their antics are aimed at driving home the bad faith of certain politicians in a way you won't forget.
For example, Mike Villines came on their show in 2009 and said 17 times he wouldn't support a tax increase. Of course, he did. Ever since then, he is "Mike Villiar", and they play his 17 denials. I was there to watch his conviction as one of four John & Ken-designated "tax traitors".
JD,
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I know, Bradley. I've learned a lot from listening to them, but again, I think they might get more from a guest they're at odds with by being fiercely tenacious yet consistently maintaining a polite respectfulness. YMMV.
JD, his honor or lack thereof is not and was not the question.
His position on certain topics was, and is.
(addendum to previous comment)
After all, we've been told repeatedly to debate the issues, not personalities here. I am merely adhering to that dictum.
I was just making a general point … carry on …
I hope my reply answers your concern.
J&K certainly can get under the skin of some politicians, particularly when they catch them in an "Un-Truth!".
Plus, there's the cat-fight between them and HH over their taking-out after Hugh's bud, David Drier.
Personally, when they get too rude, and Mark Levin is overly obnoxious, and Hugh is being his obsequious self (passing his lifetime moderation off as cutting-edge conservatism), it's nice to have the choice of pleasantness over on the FM side at KKJZ (jazz), KUSC (classical), or KKGO (country).
…or JackFM – straight-up classic rock.
Now why would anyone want to listen to that?
(((ducking shoes)))
. . . or Rush, who compared to J&K seems positively sedate.
Hewitt is excellent at exposing the weak spots in someone's argument. And he stays polite about it. More like a spider than a bull in a china shop.
I understand their frustration w/Whitman because they see themselves as absolutely right and her as owing an explanation.
There's no question Whitman is a big squish on illegal immigration and environmental issues too, in particular the foolish anti-carbon legislation passed by the State Senate and Assembly, and supported by Schwarzenegger. But such a job-killing, red-tape-inducing form of governance apparently is quite acceptable to a lot of the California electorate, based on one recent poll. But is that surprising? The state, after all, is loaded down with people who believe that if California can't come to Spain/Mexico/Greece, Spain/Mexico/Greece should come to California.
So Whitman's squishiness will be a good test of at least just how leftwing the state has become. That's because non-ultra-liberal voters really can't balk at voting for her due to a belief she is too rightwing. Of course, the conservatives will have to hold their nose. But, again, they've got to realize they reside in a state full of people who idiotically fall for the notion that liberalism — and voting in a liberal manner — means one is so nice, so kind, so sophisticated, so beautiful, so tolerant, so civilized. Therefore, beggars (ie, conservatives and even true, legitimate centrists) can't be choosers.
Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 10/3/2010 @ 5:37 pm
Rush is the standard that the rest aspire to rise to….
but I was talking about afternoon drive-time (and I really miss Gary Owens – when good music could be found on AM – KMPC-710).
I thought Californians were long past the point where they should have realized their state is bankrupt, and one reason for that is the cost of illegal immigration. But it's become obvious that Californians aren't willing to face their fiscal or immigration problems, and at this point I doubt a majority ever will … of if they do, it will be too late.
@Bradley- good to see you're on the mend.
You're a media guy. You see the legalities of this aren't really the issue… it's the perception of how Whitman handles a 'crisis' that are the politics of it. A simple incident has managed to get legs and out run her for several media cycles now– more than it was due– and chasing it has been partly Whitman's own fault for not getting out in front of it. This should have been knocked down fast by her team- a two day story at most, especially as they were aware of the possibly of it surfacing. When details of the budget deal are released on Wednesday, that may finally push this out of the news cycle for her. But the damage has been done. It's not much of a choice this cycle but your 'inclination' that Whitman could just be another Schwarzenegger 'in drag' may be spot on, per your comment in #57: "I certainly don't regard Whitman as my candidate, not in the slightest. She's not running for California, she's running for Meg Whitman. She's Arnold in drag, someone who entered politics for her own ego. I voted for Arnold, and after that disappointment, I'm not inclined to vote for a similar candidate."
Watch your diet, take the meds and get well ASAP. FYI, aging parent has decided to keep her sub to the NCT for another six months. Her latest local bugaboo after the wasted $ on a hotel next to some costly arts center- can her city, with its majority latino population, really afford to support a minor league baseball team when SD can't sellout tickets to Padres and Charger games? LOL 😉
DCSCA (9d1bb3) —	10/3/2010 @ 5:55 pm
AD-RtR/OS!,
You can get Rush on podcast for your drive-time pleasure. It's $50 a year, $70 for two years.
Here's a strong argument for Whitman – an LA Times editorial endorsing Brown.
"We'll have to agree to disagree on John & Ken."
Bradley – I think you're right. Maybe they're an acquired taste, but I was not impressed by their style or knowledge. John or Ken, I don't know one from the other, admitted he did not know anything about the agricultural industry but when Whitman said that was the only industry she felt a guest worker program was required for and began describing why, they began interrupting and talking over her. On the harangue over using e-verify, which Whitman thinks is crucial to enforcement but unfair to use as a club against businesses yet because it is not accurate enough, J&K's only response was to attack her for not giving giving them an answer for when it would be accurate enough to use. My answer would have been 10% false positives and negatives now is unacceptable, we don't know how much lower that can be squeezed. Throwing out a number does not make any sense. John and Ken kept interrupting because they wanted to hear a number.
We'll have to disagree, because to me they were a couple of jerks.
Heh. Because it's fun to sing along, of course.
Bill Carroll(KFI) is a Canadian fairly new to the lineup. Reasonable moderate conservo, good stuff.
I was General Counsel to a Southern California manufacturer for four years. Authentic looking RA cards and SS cards are readily available. It is illegal discrimination under federal law to "look beyond" facially valid identification for hiring purposes. It is also illegal discrimination under federal law to base employment decisions on a letter from the SS administration. The employer's only obligation is to provide a copy of the letter to the employee and suggest they clear it up with the SS administration.
Jeff S. (14b5cf) —	10/3/2010 @ 6:05 pm
Californians must choose. One candidate is a stranger to the political and governmental landscape; the other knows every superhighway, back road and dead-end. We opt for real-world experience, know-how and creativity. The Times urges a vote for Brown.
Bradley, this is priceless: The assumption is that Brown's tenure in government has been a positive and beneficial experience for the state of California, which most clearly is up for debate.
But it's become obvious that Californians aren't willing to face their fiscal or immigration problems
Keep in mind what is happening in places France and Greece. That's where large numbers of people have been involved in protest marches — and opinion surveys indicate a substantial percentage of the public in those societies approve of such demonstrations and what's being rallied against — to express displeasure about the simple, long overdue, necessary act of raising the retirement age. Then there was the example of the British a few months ago just barely booting out the uber-leftist Labor Party in favor of the Tories—whose conservatism can be deemed as quite squishy by US standards.
Various symptoms of self-entitled, lazy liberalism are also evident in America, particularly in California.
The saying of the day: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
DCSCA,
Thank you for the good wishes.
You're a media guy. You see the legalities of this aren't really the issue… it's the perception of how Whitman handles a 'crisis' that are the politics of it.
Yes. Whitman walked right into Allred's trap. What were Whitman's high-priced consultants telling her?
What were Whitman's high-priced consultants telling her?
Don't forget to sign the check!
Brown laid the groundwork for this calamity aka CA, with his granting of Collective Bargaining to public employees, and the right to strike (excepting public safety employees) during his first term as Gov.
And the genius' on Spring Street think that he's the best choice because he knows where all the bodies are buried?
Hell, as the old joke goes, he knows because he buried most of them.
Nothing like rewarding failure and incompetence.
AD-RtR/OS! (b5fc01) —	10/3/2010 @ 10:56 pm
Lol, Let's look at your "answer" to me:
> She only said that Arizona's law was constitutional, and that she didn't want that law in California. She never once says that Arizona has a good idea.
> She didn't *only* say that. I directed readers to a quote of Whitman in the article's second graf:
> "You know, I'm running for the governor of California so I had to make a decision," Whitman said. "Does the Arizona law make sense for California? And I have said no, I don't think the Arizona law makes sense for California because we have a much bigger state with much bigger geography."
So, according to you "it doesn't make sense here" is the same as "it DOES make sense there?" mmm, yeah.
And it is interesting that you apply hypertechnical standards of accuracy when discussing Whitman's comments, but not for yourself.
And then there is this:
> Of course, Whitman might have been honestly mistaken. But changing her story after the letter was produced didn't make her look good.
So according to you, the HONEST thing would have been to keep telling a story that you say is not true, even after it is shown to be untrue. And somehow changing her story—which you admit might have been mistaken about in the first place—is the dishonest thing? Am I getting you right?
> No bogeyman is needed.
Well, that is big of you. So I assume you will take back all the times you suggested she was a dirty liar, right?
> One can just assume Whitman was honestly mistaken and the letter refreshed her memory. But at the very least, Whitman was still careless. She would have been better off saying she and her husband have no memory of such a letter, but can't rule it out.
The fair thing to do is to recognize this. They were being asked to prove the negative. How do you prove you did not receive the letter? You ask yourself 1) do I remember receiving it? and 2) would I have remembered? Her husband could have rationally concluded that he didn't receive that letter.
It is normal for ordinary users of the English language to say, "it didn't happen" when what they mean in the hypertechnical sense is "I don't remember." For instance, imagine you were asked "have you ever murdered anyone?" Well, hopefully the truth is "no." And you would be very likely to say, "no." But how can you ever be sure. Maybe in fact you have murdered someone and you just don't remember!
By your hypertechnical claim, no allegation could ever actually be denied. Indeed, according to your view, just about every denial is per se dishonest, because who knows what tricks our minds might play on us.
And for that matter, the letter Allred was describing didn't actually exist. She said her document would be "in support of our allegations,"http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20018055-503544.html
As we now know, the document she was referring to did not support her allegations. So the husband might have truthfully said, "We didn't receive any document or letter supporting her allegations" and in fact even if it turns out to be his handwriting on the letter, he would still be 100% right.
As for your complaints about how it looks and how it she is handling things, you know handling a BS political hit is not training to be governor.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) —	10/4/2010 @ 6:51 am
Aaron Worthing:
Meg Whitman has said (either herself or via her surrogates) that she both opposes the Arizona law, and that she would let if stand. The implied disclaimer in any "Would you let Policy X stand?" question is "… if you were in a position to do anything about it", because otherwise the question is meaningless. So, Whitman would "oppose" the law by allowing it to stand if it were up to her? That's doublespeak, and that's what Brother Bradley is arguing.
Leviticus (9b7446) —	10/4/2010 @ 8:57 am
Well, what are you basing it on? because the only quote i saw said that she thought it should be allowed to stand as a constitutional matter. Which is a different subject.
so do you have a cite?
Megyn Kelly is going carve up Gloria, like an early thanksgiving turkey
ian cormac (6709ab) —	10/4/2010 @ 9:05 am
is gloria going on meghan's show? or is she just going to talk about the case?
meghan is good, and again, hate to admit it, but levin did a good job. not to mention hewitt. but how can i say it? Its hard to beat Greta, not so much because her interview was better, but because among the three you would think Greta would be the most sympathetic to gloria. in fact i think greta almost regretted that gloria was being so off the wall as to force her to say those things. There was no joy on greta's part in doing this, she just felt someone had to be the grown up.
And good for her.
That's what I read, maybe "discretion will be the better part of valor" and she'll reconsider
when is that to air? i hope it wasn't today, because that would be a must-tivo event.
all i could find in searching for a match up was this, an old one that might serve as a preview. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/01/video-megyn-kelly-smacks-down-gloria-allred/
but that is old. i wanna see the new stuff.
as for whether allred will show up… well, remember allred is a big fame whore. and she probably greatly underestimates kelly. i mean we know kelly is a woman to be reckoned with, not so sure even now allred will realize that.
i mean to realize kelly was likely to beat her, allred would need to recognize she was not perfect…
It's in one of the articles Brother Bradley linked at #92 – the second one.
Whitman says she would let the Arizona law stand, but one of her Spanish language ads says she "opposes" both the Arizona law and its Cali equivalent.
Leviticus (7c7d88) —	10/4/2010 @ 9:57 am
Leviticus, it's possible to say you'd let a law stand that you oppose in some manner.
Meg's pretty good on immigration. Arizona's law isn't practical or popular in California, and Meg is obviously playing politician by having a different message for two audiences.
But, those messages are not incompatible. I think it's smart for her to inform hispanics that she isn't going to impose Arizona's law. It's also smart to note that the law is constitutional, to audiences more concerned with the DOJ's excesses.
okay, so that is the same quote. now here it is in full context:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/07/whitman-arizona-immigration-la.html#ixzz11PW5qOPP
Clearly in that context, she was commenting on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the law, not whether it was a good idea. Which only makes sense because the constitution allows us to do many things that we might not want to see happen.
Like i don't want to see the Bush tax cuts expire. But no one seriously considers allowing them to expire to be unconstitutional.
Or closer to home Patterico is pretty clear that 1) proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, but 2) he opposes it and 3) i think he even voted against it. there is nothing at all inconsistent with saying "yes, you can do it. but you shouldn't."
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) —	10/4/2010 @ 10:04 am
Leviticus,
A.W. is simply being argumentative, so it's no use discussing the subject with him.
Esmerelda (a18ddc) —	10/4/2010 @ 10:46 am
Uh, that was moi. I thought I cleaned my handle, but evidently didn't.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) —	10/4/2010 @ 10:46 am
accidental sockpuppetry, eh? Patterico later fixed it for me, but waaay upthread, i think in this thread, i accidentally posted under a fake name because i screwed with his sock puppet friday thing and then didn't scrub the nick.
i said in the post explaining, like you just did, my mistake, that i have forsworn sock puppet friday for that reason.
That being said, this is wrong:
> it's no use discussing the subject with him.
The answer is you have misrepresented what that quote was about. it was about whitman's interpretation of the constitution, not her policy prescriptions. She never said a word approving of the AZ law, and in fact i think it is clear–both from statements in english and in spanish–that she doesn't want to do anything like that, here. i have read, in the comments that she does support sending troops to the border, which i suppose is a start.
So i am not being just argumentative. you have misrepresented her position. and you have not corrected it.
A.W.:
You can't simultaneously "oppose" something and submit that you'd "let it stand" if you were in a position to do anything about it. Those are weasel words, unless you make a good argument that your personal preferences carry you one way, but your duty – to your constituents or the Constitution or God or anything else – forces you to take another path. I don't see that argument implied here. It's "Yeah, that law's a-OK" outta one side of her mouth and "No, este regla es muy mal" outta the other… which is understandable, in a political sense, but still weaselly.
To say that you oppose a given policy for California but recognize the constitutionality of a similar policy in Arizona is something else – and if that's what she wanted to say, she would've said it. Just because something is constitutional doesn't mean anyone has to support it – see "Ground Zero Mosque" for the relevant arguments on that point, and Obama's weasel words about "it's constitutional, but I have no comment on its advisability", (and everyone's subsequent justified mockery).
You can't simultaneously "oppose" something and submit that you'd "let it stand" if you were in a position to do anything about it
That seems extremely absurd.
Perhaps this is just an interpretation issue, but she was asked about the constitutionality, and said she'd let it stand. That's different from saying she supported it, and of course, she thinks it's not the right policy for California. she doesn't want to undermine Arizona lawmakers, even though she disagrees.
I'm amazed you're phrasing this as "yeah, that law's a-OK" and "muy mal".
The reason you have to rephrase her comments is because your interpretation is not found in her actual comments. Saying the law should stand for Arizona and not California is pretty simple to understand. It's their business and their state to run, and not her pref. for Cali.
I would say that the states have got to be able to decide what is right for the state, so I would let the Arizona law stand for Arizona. […] My view is you gotta let the states do what they gotta do until the federal government proves they can secure these borders.
She has a message to hispanics that she won't support the law that would be very unpopular with them. She has a message to people who are worried that the federal government is opposing any kind of sane immigration approach. These messages are not identical, but they do not contradict.
IIRC, J&K were all over Meg for "pulling a Yasser" by saying one thing in her English-language ads, and the opposite in her Spanish-language ads.
But, the upside is, she'll be correct half the time; unlike her opponent who has never been right about anything.
AD-RtR/OS! (878407) —	10/4/2010 @ 4:03 pm
I think the radio guys were being bombastic and unfair.
It's one thing to say two different things to do different audiences, and another to say contrary things to two different audiences.
I admit, it would be better if she just said the exact same lines, but she has the same position in both languages that she won't be imposing this law on California, but the feds shouldn't cross Arizona's efforts.
"Saying the law should stand for Arizona and not California is pretty simple to understand. It's their business and their state to run, and not her pref. for Cali."
– Dustin
I've said this several times, now: this is not what I take issue with. Of course what is good for Arizona might not be good for California – there's bigger geography to cope with and whatnot.
What I am taking issue with is this: Whitman said she would let the Arizona law stand. Her spanish language ad said that she opposed both the Arizona law AND (AND AND AND) it's California equivalent. The implication of that statement is that she opposes the Arizona law IN ARIZONA, not just the translation of the Arizona law to California. And that is doublespeak.
I think Megyn's slamdown should settle this, but that assumes Gloria has a clue, facts not in evidence
A minor correction on my part: there isn't a direct equivalent to the Arizona law that's been brought up in California. The exact language of the ad is that Whitman "opposes the Arizona law and opposed Prop. 187″, which was a proposal of similar sentiment in Cali.
Here are a couple definitions for the word "oppose" from dictionary.com:
to act against or provide resistance to; combat.
to stand in the way of; hinder; obstruct.
to set as an opponent or adversary.
to be hostile or adverse to, as in opinion: to oppose a resolution in a debate."
If Whitman "would let the Arizona law stand", how can she honestly categorize herself as one who does (or would) "oppose" it?
OK, Leviticus actually does have a point. If that's her exact language: "opposes the Arizona law and opposed Prop. 187″, then she should have been more clear.
I think it's a lot less than the radio show makes it out to be, though. Just my take is that she's trying to reassure folks that she won't impose this law, while also noting it's perfectly fine for Arizona to do it (I realize this is contradicted by the quote above, but consider that an error of communication).
> To say that you oppose a given policy for California but recognize the constitutionality of a similar policy in Arizona is something else – and if that's what she wanted to say, she would've said it.
And THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. The question and answer once again, only this time with my emphasis:
A question of whether a state has the "right" to do something is a question about whether it can do so consistent with the constitution.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) —	10/4/2010 @ 5:38 pm
Yes, Leviticus, there was an equivelant law in CA to AZ's SB-1070, but it was IIRC wrapped up in Prop-187, which was declared unconstitutional at the District Court level, and the Governor (Grey Davis) declined to pursue an appeal to the Circuit Court. So, the law has never been enforced, but remains on the books – I just can't remember the section, but had posted it here at one time.
"The implication of that statement is that she opposes the Arizona law IN ARIZONA, not just the translation of the Arizona law to California. And that is doublespeak."
Leviticus – She's not running for the Governor of Arizona. Has anybody actually listened to the interview the quotes were pulled from in comment #92?
Right, Aaron. Leviticus's quote shows she needed to clarify. When pressed on it, she did so really easily, and perfectly in line with the obvious intent (and also her other commentary before and after).
However, the implication is that she needed to clarify something she said in Spanish because she wanted to distance herself from a position (IMO that positions being imposing a law over California that she has never claimed to want to do).
This is a matter of trust, though, so while I don't see the problem, it's normal for people to think she could meant to be unclear.
btw, here is megyn kelly v. gloria allred, another on the list of people who make allred look bad.
The interesting line is pretty late on. Kelly takes alot of shots to say, "this is about politics, right?" (paraphrasing, of course). But then toward the end Allred says, "this is about hypocrisy" saying that whitman has said that employers should not hire illegal immigrants, etc.
But hypocrisy is not a legal action. it is a POLITICAL criticism. so by saying this was about hypocrisy, the admitted it was political.
ah, forgot the link. http://www.mediaite.com/online/megyn-kelly-to-gloria-allred-it-seems-like-you-might-have-a-politcal-agenda/
True, but Megyn did hammer down the main point, that Whitman would have faced legal exposure, if she had acted on the no match letter
, "this is about hypocrisy" saying that whitman has said that employers should not hire illegal immigrants
If the US had a nickel for every time some democrat tried this attack, we'd be out of debt and lending money to China.
Essentially, a democrat finds some way a Republican wasn't clairvoyant and absolutely perfect, and calls it hypocrisy.
In this case, Meg did everything she expects employers to do. Choose to employ documented, legal workers, refuse to employ undocumented workers, and she's even very classy about how she went about this.
The only reason she actually employed a worker who was illegal is that the illegal fabricated the proof Meg and her employment agency required. Allred's insistence this is about hypocrisy is extremely unserious. It reminds me of how Brown, at a debate, insisted Meg wasn't taking responsibility for this scandal. Why should she? She's the victim of two frauds, and Brown's campaign is probably behind one of them.
It's amazing the level of scrutiny Meg's coming under for how serious her immigration stance is. I guess it's just assumed that Brown's views are totally unserious and unsustainable, so no comparison is possible.
Right. So why is she commenting on it in the first place?
But yeah, I'd like to hear the actual interview, too.
> So why is she commenting on it in the first place?
Because she was asked a very specific question about the constitutionality of the law, when that law was before the courts.
She did go out of her way to say this is Arizona's business, not Cali's, but since this is a major scare tactic used against Republicans in California, and a quick google shows a lot of libs suggesting Meg would impose it, it's natural to point out that she doesn't intend to impose it, without falling into the trap of piling on Brewer.
Plus what Aaron said. It's unfair to ask why she's commenting on something in the first place when she's being grilled on it (and the grilling is predictable and legitimate, IMO… this is a good issue).
> Brown's campaign is probably behind one of them.
To be fair to brown, i wouldn't assume that. i mean you don't need to coordinate with brown to cause any of this.
For instance, picture this scenario. the maid decides she is mad at whitman and either for pure politics or a misplaced sense of entitlement (as a lawyer, I see THAT all the time–people who will not listen when you say "person X owed you nothing"). So she says, "i want to hurt her. who will help me hurt her?" Given what a publicity whore Allred was, it seems reasonable to think the maid 1) would know who allred is, and 2) would seek her out. And allred doesn't need to coordinate with brown to know 1) this might hurt whitman and 2) to wait until around october to bring this up.
to me there is right now only one piece of evidence supporting the notion that brown is behind it: the fact that allred won't rule it out in the interview i just posted.
i mean i see that sort of thing as being similar to Lincoln's assertion of a slave power conspiracy. With respect to our greatest president he was wrong. there was no coordinated effort to secure and spread slavery. what there was, was a bunch of people working independently toward that goal.
Re asking about arizona's law. Agreed, its a legitimate question to ask. i wish politicians were asked more often about the constitution. some idjits on the left actually go as far as to say politicians shouldn't talk about the constitution, as though they don't take an oath to uphold it.
i hope i didn't imply that i thought it was out of bounds. And within reason, politicians should answer every question put before them, especially by someone they have consented to be interviewed by.
– Aaron Worthing
I know. She's talking about it for the same reason the interviewer was asking about it – because it's pertinent. The fact that she's not running for Governor of Arizona, like daleyrocks said, doesn't change anything.
But you are missing the part where i am saying, she was being asked about the constitutionality of the law. the question was whether arizona has the right to do it. that is a question of their legal power, as in the constitution.
Its not a contradiction to say, you can legally do X but I don't think you should. During the everyone draw mohammed controversy i faced arguments like that all the time. Yes, you can, please don't. No contradiction.
To be fair to brown
He took full advantage at the debate, so I feel I am being more than fair.
I think we're at an impasse – I understand that she was talking about the constitutionality of the law; but she doesn't say that the only reason she supports it is that it is constitutional. She just says "I would let it stand." Then she turns around and says she opposes it. That strikes me as disingenuous.
She could have just said "Arizona is perfectly within its rights to have such a law, but I don't agree with their course of action"; but she said that if she were in a position to change the law, she would let it stand. That's not "opposition"; that is – at best – indifference. But her ad says she opposes it. So I say she's talking out of both sides of her mouth.
My 2 cents, I heard a bit from greta earlier tonight, her biggest beef was that Allred was acting in a way contrary to her client's welfare, increasing the likelihood that she would face federal prosecution (assuming the feds care about lieing on forms with a fake SS #).
MD in Philly (5a98ff) —	10/4/2010 @ 7:24 pm
Actually, Leviticus, it's not at all disingenuous of her. Rather, it's the sign of a good jurist who would realize that a law was Constitutional (and thus would allow it to stand, given a chance to "do something about it" as you put it) even though he/she personally opposed it.
In fact, it's no different from a Catholic saying he opposed abortion but understood its Constitutionality.
Some Chump (e84e27) —	10/4/2010 @ 7:28 pm
Leviticus – The interview is embedded at the link in #92. It takes a Facebook membership to get to it. I don't have one or plan on signing up. I see a lot of people making great leaps of faith about context based on quotes pulled from an interview and we have all seen how inaccurate those can be.
"The fact that she's not running for Governor of Arizona, like daleyrocks said, doesn't change anything."
Leviticus – Without hearing the context of the question, to me it's tough to arrive at that conclusion.
daley – I'm not on Facebook either.
But your reservations regarding a lack of context are reasonable.
well facebook is not hard to sign up for. but they are complete a–es if you say anything at all controversial. they kept banning my account for my participation in the everyone draws mohammed controversy, and i kept on making up fake new emails and recreating the account.
Griff Harsh, the husband of California gubernatorial candidate Nutneg Whitman, acknowledged in a statement on Thursday that "it is possible" he received and wrote notes on a letter from the Social Security Administration back in 2003, regarding the former housekeeper. The Whitman/ Harsh household then fired their housekeeper in June 2009 (after nine years of service), when Nutmeg handlers decided that she was an election liability.
Meg, Meg, Meg, where do I start, you have reportedly spent $119 million of your own money to get elected Governor but you couldn't use some of it to get your housekeeper (after nine years of service) some legal help to get her papers, and worse you lied about it. Wow, what a WITCH, of course I meant it with a "B".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#39450925
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGRrNs8-s5w
But your comments on holding employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers real takes the cake, I assume you exempt yourself and your husband, or will you be turning yourself in.
Meg on holding employers accountable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4fWLHiw8zA
Meg you think you can buy the election, but what puzzles many is if you real cared and loved California then why not do your civic duty and vote, seems more rhetoric than anything else.
In good times we might give you a try but not in our disaster mode that we find ourselves in after that so-called outsider Independent Republican, named Arnold Schwarzenegger (sold to us by radio personalities John and Ken), ruined our state, yah we will trust another one of you liars, think not. And another thing nine years this maid was in your house, in your house and you failed to learned this major thing about her, come on this sounds like a huge lie that no one can believe in.
Ebay paid out $200,000 because Nutmeg assaulted an employee, so it's not the first time she has mistreated an employee. Good luck winning Nutmeg, money will buy you admiration from the majority just from the Gay Old Party (GOP), but not from all of California.
Montana (d10380) —	10/4/2010 @ 8:20 pm
A.W. – You keep making definitive statements about the questions Whitman was asked:
Are you now admitting you do not know the specific questions she was asked and are just relying on the blurbs in the texts of those articles? If so, that seems like a big leap of faith to get so hostile with other commenters in defending your conclusions.
Montana – Arnold was not the one who ruined your state. Get a clue. Also, after Diaz confessed to Whitman she had lied and was illegal, she did seek legal help for her. Somehow you missed that part. Diaz is not the victim here.
you couldn't use some of it to get your housekeeper (after nine years of service) some legal help to get her papers
Um, she did pay for a lawyer to look into this very thing.
What a weirdo. The law says she has to terminate the fraud. I don't understand why you think it's her responsibility to help someone who defrauded her and put her in such serious jeopardy, but she actually was that nice.
You're just a nutcase. Meg required her employee to have documentation, and then fired her for forging that documentation. You're insane to hold this against her. Oh wait, you don't. You could care less.
From a SF Chronicle blog commenting on the same Whitman radio interview, implying to me her "No to Arizona law" Spanish language advertising is directed at California voters and adding a little different color:
"Whitman was asked about her views regarding the law, and she was also grilled about her thoughts on the impending ruling.
"I understand why the people of Arizona have risen up in sheer frustration because the federal government has not done the job of securing the border," she said.
But, she added, "I don't think the Arizona law makes sense for California, because we have a much bigger state with much bigger geography."
She called for securing the border, saying that in California, "I spent a day on the border and I can tell you we have not given the border patrol agents the resources they need."
But the radio hosts pursued the matter, asking Whitman to further define her view: so what did she want to see the federal judge decide?
"I would say the states have got to be able to decide what is right for their state…so I would let the Arizona law stand for Arizona," she said. "You have to let the states do what they gotta do..until the federal government proves that they can secure these borders."
Whitman's campaign in recent weeks has heavily advertised on Spanish language radio what it said has been her position on the issue: "NO a la Proposicion 187 y NO a la ley de Arizona." (NO to Prop. 187 and NO to the Arizona law.")"
Thanks for that very informative comment, Daleyrocks. Perhaps she's just simpatico with me on this, but I'm surprised it's not obvious this is what she's meant.
If Leviticus translated her correctly, in full context, saying she opposes SB 1070, indeed she needed to clarify a bit, but I don't see how she's hiding her view, which I believe is mainstream.
Daley
the guy was just cutting and pasting a comment into multiple blogs.
Try this link: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=%22Meg%2C+Meg%2C+Meg%2C+where+do+I+start%2C+you+have+reportedly+spent+%24119%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=7c8f32f65b860aba
Or if that doesn't work, try googling this phrase, including the quotation marks: "Meg, Meg, Meg, where do I start, you have reportedly spent $119 million"
i am guessing he or she is being paid to say this, because some of the pages are ridiculous. he says this on a post about wimbleton, about that goldilocks planet and so on.
ack, its even worse than i thought. have the search include the ommitted results and what do you get? over 300 results.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Meg,+Meg,+Meg,+where+do+I+start,+you+have+reportedly+spent+$119%22&hl=en&prmd=iv&filter=0#q=%22Meg%2C+Meg%2C+Meg%2C+where+do+I+start%2C+you+have+reportedly+spent+%24119%22&hl=en&prmd=iv&ei=xRyrTLu7H4H88AaNxdCUCA&start=10&sa=N&filter=0&fp=7c8f32f65b860aba
i take this part back, btw: some of the pages are ridiculous. he says this on a post about wimbleton, about that goldilocks planet and so on.
I looked a little more into it, and it was not quite appearing on those ridiculous pages. still i might copy some of my comments onto the comments of 2 maybe 3 blogs, but always with an indication that i was doing that, and certainly not over 350 different blogs.
Btw, i turned what i found out into a whole post on my blog, here: http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-this-paid-for-sexism-homophobic.html
A.W. – Somebody had the same line on other blogs. That's the way google works. I saw other anti-Whitman phrases repeated countless times in my search.
Thanks for the substantive response.
daleyrocks (940075) —	10/5/2010 @ 6:50 am
Okay here is the substantive response:
> Are you now admitting you do not know the specific questions she was asked and are just relying on the blurbs in the texts of those articles? If so, that seems like a big leap of faith to get so hostile with other commenters in defending your conclusions.
given that the burden is on them, yes, absolutely. the text represented that the question was about constitutionality. i see no reason to think that is a lie, and whitman gets the benefit of the doubt when people insinuate that she is lying or inconsistent.
A.W. – You keep saying things like:
"the text represented that the question was about constitutionality."
While the text from the link in comment 92, if we are in synch here, actually says:
"Pressed on whether Arizona had the right to enact such a law to deal with the problem of illegal immigration, she said, "I would let the law stand for Arizona.""
Nobody in the comments has claimed to have listened to the interview or be in possession of a transcript. The color added by Carla Marinucci, a reporter for the SF Chronicle, in comment 288 makes it clear when she says no Arizona law she is referring to California, otherwise there is no reason to link it to Prop 187 in her advertising. Why do non-California voters care about Prop. 187?
once again, the burden is on the accuser. and comment 92 didn't come close to meeting it.
its not enough to doubt the accuracy of the representation of the question. you have to prove what was actually asked.
And i will note that the answer is more consistent with a constitutional question than a policy question.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) —	10/5/2010 @ 1:41 pm
Spam, spam, spam, spam!
Milhouse (ea66e3) —	7/8/2011 @ 2:02 pm
milhouse
be sure to tell patrick when you see it, becuase my ability to address spam is… limited… these days.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) —	7/8/2011 @ 2:04 pm
I'll be nuking spam for much of the weekend, plus trying to do another project or two for Patterico. Consider it covered.
Stashiu3 (44da70) —	7/8/2011 @ 2:06 pm
No prob. That's why I email you both, so whoever gets to it first can delete it. They're getting more and more creative. That one was almost believable.
yeah, i am convinced most of these spammers are written originally in japanese.
Most, which is why they're easy to spot. But the recent ones haven't been; the two I spotted today would have been perfectly plausible in other contexts.
Quick! we need to get this Meg thread off the "recent comments" log before Mr. Feets thinks he's heard the call of the wild.
elissa (157504) —	7/8/2011 @ 2:30 pm