Town Square

Post a New Topic

Meg is spending like there is no tomorrow

Original post made by Meg, Downtown North, on Mar 29, 2010

According to the Mercury-News, Meg Whitman has already spent almost $40 million of her own money on her campaign for governor. She has outspent her opponents 10 to 1. She may spend an additional $50 million before the primary election. Can she spend another $100 million on the general election? Do we really want a spend spend spend person to be our next governor?

Web Link

Comments (32)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2010 at 7:05 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Meg is spending her own, after tax money, while democrats will be spending money extorted under threat of loss of employment from teacher and other public employee unions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 30, 2010 at 11:03 am

Gotta wonder why Meg is trying to buy a job that pays, by her standards, basically nothing and has the worst approval ratings in the state. What nice lucrative back room deals is she planning in Gobernadorville?

Her campaign is Arnold 2003 warmed over for an audience with no memory and unlimited gullibility. Arnold talked the big talk, but as we've seen, he walked a very small walk. Why should we think Meg can bust the boxes that so easily defeated the Terminator?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Cause Meg ain't "whipped".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by angry and voting for Meg..just a drop in the the tidal wave coming to this country
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Mar 30, 2010 at 4:06 pm

Gee...maybe some Democrat leader, like Obama, should just "demand" that she quit, like he "demanded" the insurance companies not follow the latest Bill fiasco posing as health care reform..you know the one I am talking about, that claimed to cover kids but doesn't? But, Obama to the rescue, not really more a of a slide to tyranny, Chavez style here. He simply insisted, and they buckled under. Write a good bill in the first place? Following the Law? Contracts? Who needs 'em when we have a tyrant?

So, get to work Obama, and "insist" that Meg stop spending her money.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Unangry and not voting for Meg
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 30, 2010 at 5:31 pm

To buy the election, Meggie is spending the millions she extorted from stockholders while greasing her palms in backroom deals, while the Democrats are spending the nickels and dimes contributed by the patriotic downtrodden in order to educate the voters about their hopes and dreams.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ten18
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2010 at 10:12 pm

". . .the Democrats are spending nickels and dimes contributed by the patriotic downtrodden in order to educate the voters about their hopes and dreams." What the ????

I think it's the other way around - the Democrats may squeeze the "poor and downtrodden," for nickels and dimes (they have plenty of wealthy donors too), but they sure know how to extort billions (make that trillions) from the hard-working taxpayer. And believe me - they're pretty good at greasing their palms and making backroom deals. Who are you trying to kid?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 31, 2010 at 8:26 am

How a candidate runs a campaign is a clear indicator of how she will govern. Do you really think Meg is going to stop spending if she wins?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park
on Mar 31, 2010 at 8:32 am

I think a lot of voters are lazy and uneducated on the issues and can be easily swayed by Madison Avenue hucksters. Therefore, whoever has the most money can basically buy these voters off. I do not think this gives us the best leaders. It does say that to be a leader you first better be very rich - or have rich supporters.
This is why I think campaign finance laws are critical. Also, as Thomas Jefferson pointed out "self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ten18
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 31, 2010 at 8:52 am

We have no good choices in this race. A washed up failure of an ex-governor, and two uber-rich RINO's. God save this state.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by campaign finance
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 31, 2010 at 9:19 am

Well, Obama broke his promise to use public funding for his election. If you supported Obama, you are inconsistent to criticize Meg for this reason alone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park
on Mar 31, 2010 at 9:33 am

Campaign -
Not really. I criticized Obama for not living up to his commitment at the time. Still, there's a big difference between Obama getting his funding from the small contributions of literally millions of supporters and Meg's so-far, totally self-financed campaign.
Even though he broke his pledge later in the campaign, I still voted for Obama because I still thought he was the best candidate. There are certainly other reasons not to support Meg but I especially dislike the idea of the rich waltzing into a position of power on the basis of their wealth alone, as if that qualifies them for office. Especially a carpetbagger like Whitman who didn't even deign to vote on most elections in her time in California.
What exactly qualifies Meg for any political office, other than her ability to buy her way in?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 31, 2010 at 11:06 am

"Well, Obama broke his promise to use public funding for his election."

Of course he did. Obama decided against socialism. But McCain and Palin went for socialism - they took the public's money.

At least Meg is spending money from her online garage sale. Got some catchy tunes in some of her stuff, too. Big hit with the Repub base.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Meg for me
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Mar 31, 2010 at 6:23 pm

Let me see...a washed up ex-gov who helped destroy this State, or an uber-rich entrepeneur who built a multi-million dollar company, responsible for making many many people employed and rich, including the "extorted" stockholders ( I got a good laugh out of that one), who understands how taxes and regulations, incentives and disincentives work...

gosh..hard choice!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park
on Mar 31, 2010 at 8:04 pm

Meg-
OK you've convinced me that Whitman would make a fine CEO. However, she's running for governor. Yet she brings neither government nor governing experience to this campaign. The woman couldn't even be bothered to vote in state elections for heavens sake!
Isn't two terms of Arnold enough to convince you that experience counts for something? When it comes to experience who's got more than Jerry B? He's already served as Secretary of State, two terms as governor, and as State Attorney General. He also understands the problems of cities after serving 2 terms as Mayor of Oakland. Jerry can deal with the rough & tumble of politics, unlike your namesake who throws a tantrum when she doesn't get her way. Poor, spoiled little rich girl.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tim Buck II
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 31, 2010 at 9:33 pm

"However, she's running for governor. Yet she brings neither government nor governing experience to this campaign. The woman couldn't even be bothered to vote in state elections for heavens sake!"

Excellent qualifications for a Republican candidate, if she happened to be a movie actor.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2010 at 7:19 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Jerry Brown's contempt for the people, exemplified by his Rose Bird appointment, may well be on the way to justification.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 1, 2010 at 7:51 am

I'd trust a robber baron infinitesimally less than a black mamba slithering across my leg. I also know a former E-Bay executive(voluntarily retired because he didn't need to work anymore) who dismisses any notion that MW was very good at her job and who said she is utterly insufferable. Having said that, being a CEO has absolutely nothing to do with being the Chief executive of a state or a country. Actually, the same qualities that make one an effective corporatist will make him/her terrible at governing and political maneuvering. She is trying to buy the governorship because she is bored and because, like GWBush, she feels it's the next step she is owed, but I can guarantee that the results, should she succeed in getting elected would be the same unimaginable disaster.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mcps
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 1, 2010 at 9:36 am

Would this be an issue if she were a man?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park
on Apr 1, 2010 at 10:07 am

mcps -
Funny you should ask. Meg Whitman's spending was one of the stories on KQED's California Report this morning where they pointed out that two previous rich folks who tried to buy their way into the governorship were summarily dismissed by the electorate:
"There's a joke among those involved in California politics that if you want to know whether being rich is a sure-fire way to win elective office, just ask Governor Steve Westly. Or Governor Al Checchi. Both men lost their bids for governor after spending millions of dollars of their own money."
I tend to give credence to Daniel's friend who actually worked at eBay under Whitman and who found her insufferable. This was actually a news item a while back when several former eBay execs who had worked with her came out in opposition to her candidacy for many of the reasons Daniel cited.
I have to ask you mcps, and the other Whitman fans on this blog, what in Whitman's record makes you think she is qualified to hold the highest elective office in the largest state in the country? Being rich is not a qualification in my book. Besides, she wasn't the entrepeneur who started eBay - she was hired on as President & CEO to run it 2 years after it started. I suspect eBay would have succeeded quite well with any competent CEO at the helm.
A personal story: my daughters went to Menlo-Atherton with Meg's son. They described him as spoiled & lazy, not a good student who was often in trouble. Yet, he graduated and got into a very good school. Don't tell the rich don't get special treatment. They come to expect it as their due, just as Meg expects to be crowned queen of California this year. Not with my vote she won't.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Willy
a resident of Woodside
on Apr 1, 2010 at 11:07 am

"Cause Meg ain't "whipped"."

How do we know WHAT Meg is?

She shuts out the press and won't answer questions, like, "if you lay off 40,000 workers, how does that bring jobs back to the state in this recession?"

How does being a CEO help run a state? Arnold said he could do it without experience, but couldn't. He also told us on Leno he was so wealthy he didn't need special interest money, and proceeded to raise more than any other governor.

Meg: at least tell us who you voted for over the last 20 years!!

Oh, yeah, there's that "can't bother to vote" thing.

She's really in it for the good working folks, isn't she?

;-)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Silly Meg
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 1, 2010 at 11:32 am

Meg didn't create Ebay. She destroyed what Pierre Omydar built. She was pushed out for self-dealing by the board.

She lied about giving dividends to shareholders. She turned Ebay -- which was unique -- into a 5th rate Amazon by alienating all the small sellers.

Her college-aged sons have been shown to be racists.

Anybody but Meg. For the first time in my life, I've registered as a Republican just so I can vote against her in the primary. She's a liar.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Willy
a resident of Woodside
on Apr 1, 2010 at 11:36 am

Silly Meg:

Please provide links to your claims:

* She was pushed out for self-dealing by the board.
* She lied about giving dividends to shareholders.
* Her college-aged sons have been shown to be racists.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jardins
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2010 at 3:06 pm

It's OBSCENE to have this kind of money, let alone spend it on getting political power, in this democracy (so-called) when so many people lack even the basics needed for a life with economic dignity--let alone people in devastated areas of the world, who don't even get to survive because of no water and no food!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by neighbor
a resident of another community
on Apr 1, 2010 at 3:36 pm

Listen to everyone of her ads --- just a collection of platitudes. Appalling.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Up in Fair Oaks
a resident of another community
on Apr 1, 2010 at 4:40 pm

MW looks like Chucky


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Boomer
a resident of Community Center
on Apr 1, 2010 at 4:46 pm

Meg is a Brand Manager. Good at such work, and it is clear she is running as Meg the "Brand," like a Procter & Gamble product such as Tide. (Meg worked at P&G early in her professional life.)

Many years ago, I had some dealings with her as an outsider. A charming exterior, knew how to push buttons that the people she was trying to persuade. It did come across as manipulative from time to time.

I have know idea what she is like to work for, so I won't comment on that.

I will observe that California is not a "BRAND," and Meg's training that leads her to focus things on 3 key points is good for a campaign strategy but will not work should she get elected.

Steve Poizner could do much to help out "small businesses" if he took more of a policy level approach to his job, working to get usurious insurance costs down for small companies. This is a huge overhead expense, and my own personal experience is that the insurers across several types of coverage are having a hey day--to the point where the insurance industry is putting small businesses out of business. Then the beast wants to be fed more by those who remain.

Jerry Brown seems to have grown up compared to when he last was Governor and ran for President. He was a horrible governor, and that alone calls into question why he would be a good governor next time.

3 bad choices.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Etaoin Shrdlu
a resident of another community
on Apr 1, 2010 at 6:49 pm

I hope that Poizner makes her spend it all, and she makes him spend it all. Meg W. has no political competence or experience, frequently doesn't vote, and thinks that government is a kind of business. She's running to the right, as is Poizner, because the state Republican true-believers are somewhat to the right of Louis XIV. Traditional pragmatic California Republicans fled the party years ago and call themselves "Independents" to avoid being associated with the tin-foil hat brigade. She and Poizner make Jerry (been there, done that) Brown look good.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jb
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Apr 6, 2010 at 10:23 pm

I don't think business people know anything about politics. They know about the backstabbing treachery that gets you to the top in business, but not much about providing for others or arriving at consensus.

And I suspect the past passle of Republicans who have (completely against their stated character) spent us into the poor house and emptied the Social Security Trust fund have a plan. Spend all the money you can get your hands on when you get into office so that it won't be there for "big government" to use in the future. If you spend government's money it will HAVE to get smaller!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 6, 2010 at 10:38 pm


A basic requirement for any politician should be that they have had to make the pay roll for 100 + employees.

Lawyers, who dominate politics, do not create wealth or value-- they detract and destroy wealth and value

The majority of lawyers have no training in business or economics, decision science nor any science-- their training is in rhetoric, manipulation and theatrics--- and billing


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Meg
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 6, 2010 at 11:38 pm

Meg put up another $20 million today. And said she's willing to pay $150 million for the governorship. Buy It Now!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Meg for me
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Apr 7, 2010 at 6:07 am

Agree with Sharon. At this point I only want in office those who have actually had to turn a profit somewhere or who have served in our military since it became all volunteer. I want people who understand the PRIVATE SECTOR and our SECURITY issues.

Attorneys, government workers, professional politicians,..they just don't cut it for me.

Meg qualifies in the first, she has my vote.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park
on Apr 7, 2010 at 10:02 pm

OK Meg4Me
So right away Whitman doesn't fit one of your two requirements - she doesn't understand SECURITY issues. As for your other requirement that she understand PRIVATE SECTOR issues, exactly how does that qualify her for PUBLIC office? If you want someone who has no experience in politics or government to be your governor it is certainly your right to support and vote for them. You just haven't convinced me that she is up for the job.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Standardized Test Prep: When to Start and Whom to Hire?
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 1,565 views

King of the Slides
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 1,287 views

Finger Food and a Blood Lite?
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,170 views

Subverting open, fair and honest debate (Measure D)
By Douglas Moran | 6 comments | 673 views

The Future of our Parks: Public Workshops this Week
By Cathy Kirkman | 0 comments | 655 views