The results rolled out yesterday, finding to (hopefully) nobody's surprise that DiFi "stomps the field." The full pdf of results are here, where PPP doubled down on the dire, declaring "No hope for Whitman, Fiorina, Arnold, anyone."
Before abandoning us for the Emerald City, Robert had an excellent series breaking down the long-term realignment that's settling in in California, and these PPP numbers certainly reflect that. But it goes beyond simply an overwhelming lead for DiFi due to her perpetually superhuman support. PPP, through their own calculations and twitter suggestions, couldn't come up with a single potential Republican candidate that hasn't already run a statewide campaign.
And of all those tested- Tom Campbell, Carly Fiorina, Darrell Issa, Steve Poizner, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Meg Whitman- only Campbell managed a net positive approval rating (+3). And he only pulled that off by being notably less known than the rest of the field.
Arnold's at negative 40. eMeg a solid minus-22 and Fiorina at minus-19. A bare majority have an opinion of Steve Poizner, putting him at 13 points to the negative. And of the 48% who have an opinion of Darrell Issa, it's an unfavorable one by a 2-1 margin.
In other words, it's impossible to run statewide as a Republican without alienating people faster than you win them over. It hasn't just left all recent GOP contenders in a deep hole, but it should scare off anyone thinking of using a doomed DiFi challenge as a boost to higher office- just running statewide from the right is a career-ender. The half-dozen California Republicans with leadership positions in the House have no reason to come back and end their careers, and the new House members ought to see these numbers as reason not to bother.
It's a cycle that'll feed on itself as long as the Republican party is set on a dead-ender agenda of hyper-conservative purity.
Today, Field released its poll on the GOP Governor's race. And the numbers are looking good for Whitman's Buy It Now campaign:
GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is making inroads among Republicans of all stripes, from young voters to born-again Christians, according to the most recent Field Poll released Thursday.
After seeing her lead dwindle in public opinion polls last month, Whitman has surged back to a 26 percentage-point advantage over rival Steve Poizner less than a week before the June 8 primary. ...
"Meg Whitman has spent $90 million, and that's four times more than I'm spending ..." he said. "So people want to know why all the negative advertising? What's the truth? What is Meg Whitman trying to cover up?"(SacBee
She said she plans on spending $150 Million, but let's be honest here. If she's already spent almost $100, it's going to get to $200 by the time everything is said and done.
Remember 2006? When Steve Westly and his consultants spent the last few months of the campaign beating up on Phil Angelides? Well, turns out that we are getting the same thing this year from the Republicans. All that back and forth is doing us some good. In a new poll, public policy polling shows some better numbers for AG Jerry Brown:
The big winner from the Republican primary for Governor in California? It might be Jerry Brown. The likely Democratic nominee, benefiting from bad feelings between Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner, has commanding double digit leads over both of them.
Brown is up 48-36 on Whitman and 48-32 on Poizner. There are almost no races in the country this year where Democratic voters are more unified than the Republicans- in almost every case there are more Democrats voting for GOP candidates than vice versa. That's not the case in California though where Brown takes 79% of the Democratic vote to Whitman's 72% of the Republican vote and 78% of the Democratic vote to Poizner's 67% of the Republican vote. Brown is bucking another overwhelming national trend by leading both of the GOP contenders with independents. (Public Policy Polling)
I'm looking for more of the Vulture ad from Poizner. I just can't get enough of that mystery meat they are eating.
From deep in his lair private residence, former Vice President Dick Cheney has surfaced to endorse Meg Whitman for California Governor. And he did it in the OC Register, giving the typical endorsement pablum:
Meg is a leader who will not shy away from confronting the public employee unions. She has put pension reform at the center of her agenda. She is a firm believer in the power of tax cuts to strengthen small businesses and create jobs. She knows that welfare must be a temporary hand-up and not a way of life. She is committed to local control of education, and she has a strong and practical approach to securing the border and addressing the problems associated with illegal immigration.
But Darth Cheney is never quite so simple, he's going to make this endorsement something noteworthy. How so? By making it about Whitman's support for the Iraq War, which Poizner opposed in 2004.
While I am always mindful of President Reagan's 11th Commandment, there are issues of judgment that voters should consider before they cast their ballots in the Republican primary. ... But I have concerns about whether he truly adheres to the conservative principles of our party. ... In 2004, during the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign, Mr. Poizner, who was then a candidate for the state Assembly, opposed the tax cuts that were the centerpiece of our economic recovery plan.
He also broke ranks with our party on national security and the "war on terror." Mr. Poizner opposed the war in Iraq. To amplify his opposition to the national security policies of the Bush administration, he invited Richard Clarke to campaign for him in California.
I'm sure Cheney vetted this one with Whitman's camp. That being said, this is one risky move for somebody who considers herself a lock for the GOP nomination. Cheney is not popular in California. The Iraq War is certainly not popular in California.
Credit where credit is due. Poizner did speak against the Iraq War in 2004. And he was right. But, that won't help in the GOP nomination battle royale. This race is far from over folks.
Today, the oil companies behind the plan to repeal AB 32, our landmark climate change legislation, will submit their signatures to the Secretary of State.
California voters will decide the fate of the state's landmark global-warming bill in the November election after a big-bucks battle that may break records for political spending on an initiative.
Today, a group heavily backed by Texas oil giants Tesoro Corp. and Valero Energy Corp. plans to submit signatures for an initiative seeking to suspend AB32 until California's unemployment rate improves dramatically. ... AB32's proponents call it a vital step in efforts to curb greenhouse gases and create green jobs. And with federal climate-change regulations stalled in Congress, the California law takes on added significance as a potential model for other states. (SF Chronicle)
Of course, the oil companies say that it "hurts jobs" without a whole lot of evidence. Of course, to the contrary, California stands as the world's leader in clean tech. We stand an amazing opportunity to build upon that success. However, if we take a step backward, investors will shy away from the state when we are able to move forward in the future.
Look, at a time when we are facing an unprecedented environmental catastrophe, we just can't be moving in the wrong direction. And Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner as well as nearly every statewide candidate have all taken positions favoring repeal. I think Chuck DeVore is personally emitting extra hot air just to piss off the environment, which, according to DeVore is his to exploit.
But, other statewide candidates seem to want to avoid the subject. Funny how some like to play every side of the issue.
Today is the second, and likely last, debate in the GOP Gubernatorial primary, and for Steve Poizner, this is his last best chance at scoring a knockout punch to the MegMachine:
After months of being bludgeoned by billionaire Meg Whitman in a one-way campaign, the former Silicon Valley entrepreneur is finally showing signs of life. And today, he again goes head to head against the former eBay CEO in the final scheduled debate before the June 8 primary.
Live from San Jose.
"It's his last chance," said Bill Whalen, chief speechwriter for former Gov. Pete Wilson.
"Poizner's strategy has always been, 'Don't fire until you see the whites of her eyes,' " said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. "Well, here she is."
Even when the largely self-funded candidate was 50 percentage points down in the polls - refusing to spend much of his bulging war chest - Poizner had a "what, me worry?" confidence. But in recent weeks, the underdog has unleashed his own torrent of ads, spending about $2 million a week to introduce himself to voters and join Democratic groups in bashing the free-spending Whitman. (SJ merc)
Poizner who has finally gone to the airwaves to combat Whitman's months-long siege of the state of California's ears and eyes must now hope that his very effective ads hit the mark and make enough of an impression before the ballots drop in a week or two. But while few will watch this debate live, many will see a few take-away points around the web and on TV. Poizner needs to bust out with some notable sound bites on Whitman's background with Goldman Sachs as well as tossing some meat to the right-wing base.
You can watch live on CalChannel on the tube or online. In the Bay Area, it will be on KTVU-2 at 5 pm, as well as statewide on the Comcast "hometown" channel. (repeated ad nauseum, I'm sure). If you want to catch it sans smirks and harsh looks, it will be on KQED and public radio affiliates throughout the state.
One of my favorite radio programs is This American Life. It's especially good when driving to Sacramento, it pulls your cares away from what's going on there.
Except this week's episode doesn't do that at all. In fact, it goes into the lying sack of horse manure that is Steve Poizner's book. In it, he criticizes Mt. Pleasant High School students for being "lazy" and "unmotivated." But the facts are
Checking school records I learned that Poizner's unmotivated, unambitious class included one of the school valedictorians, Charles Rudy, who graduated and went to college.
Could he be getting this so completely wrong? I wondered. Could he have written an entire book misperceiving so thoroughly what was happening right in front of his eyes, and now is trying to use that book to run for governor? It seemed too incredible. (TAL)
The program then goes on to document lie, half-truths and whole manners of rich white dude misinterpretation. A tough neighborhood? Well, not really. High dropout rates? Again, not so much, graduation rates were actually substantially better than the state and national stats.
Rather than ruining the story for you, you can check it out here. Like Whitman, Poizner is entirely unqualified to run a modern, diverse state like California.
Usually when you come out with a campaign book, they tend to be banal. And they certainly don't try to attack anybody. But Steve Poizner has always been something of a wild card, so why not call students at the school that he taught kinda slow? Here's what he said about students at Mt. Pleasant High School
From an intellectual standpoint, I absolutely know not to expect Silicon Valley-type caliber ambition and smarts from East San Jose schoolkids.
This is offensive in the extreme, and a rookie political move. Look, money, and the good fortune of running against Cruz Bustamante have made him a formidable candidate, even with those poll numbers showing a huge deficit to Meg Whitman. But, sometimes you have to marvel that he could get to where he is while saying some Bell Curve-y nonsense.
Poizner needs to apologize to these students, and to the entire community. America is supposed to be about the promise of tomorrow and upward mobility. Poizner seems more interested in knocking those at the bottom rungs of the social strata off the ladder completely.
Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman are scheduled to debate in about an hour and a half. The debate is sponsored by California New Majority, so you are likely to see some full-on wingnuttery on display. Watch it on CBS2, Ustream is down.
The folks at the California Accountability Project have even produced a Viewer's guide (PDF) to all of the likely (mis)statements and half-truths.
Who's making the popcorn?
UPDATE by Robert: I'll be liveblogging here in this thread. Feel free to add your thoughts in the comments!
The debate is being held in Costa Mesa, down in my old stomping grounds of Orange County. Interestingly enough, Costa Mesa is where former mayor Allan Mansoor began bashing immigrants a few years back. Already we're expecting this debate to have lots of immigrant and Latino bashing, as we saw at the CRP convention over the weekend.
...I'm trying to liveblog, but this ustream feed is really buggy.
...Relying on the Twitter feed, Poizner and Whitman are fighting with each other over tax cuts - not whether they're a good idea or not given their massively negative impact on the budget deficit, but on whether theirs are big enough. Poizner says Whitman's cuts aren't big enough, Whitman says Poizner's will cost too much. The fact is both offer cuts that cost too much and are merely going to benefit the rich.
...Nick Velasquez of the California Accountability Project Tweets: "Hope someone can fix this feed. It's spottier than Meg Whitman's voting record."
...Still can't follow the feed. I guess Republicans don't want people to see what their candidates have to say! According to Twitter, Poizner is attacking NPR listeners, as well as saying he wants a part-time legislature, without mentioning that only the rich would be able to serve in such a legislature. Then again, Poizner and Whitman both seem to believe only the rich should serve as governor.
...Whitman says she plans to "pour money back into" UC and CSU, but doesn't say how. She says she wants "more money to go into the classroom" for K-12 - but how? Giving local districts control of money isn't enough - the fact is districts don't get enough money period. Ah, here we go, she wants more charter schools, even though they haven't been proven to work. Looks like she embraces merit pay as well.
...Poizner says flaws in K-12 is due to Legislature taking control from teachers and local districts. But he doesn't say that Prop 13 took control from teachers and local districts. Will he support majority vote for school taxes?
...Now Comcast is acting up. Back again. Whitman is dishonest on regulations: they don't cause job losses, they prevent them, as both climate crisis and financial crisis prove. She and Poizner both support suspending AB 32, despite its devastating negative impact on job creation.
...Whitman takes the immigration question. Says she opposes amnesty. Does she think those who benefited from 1986 amnesty should be kicked out? Does she think Reagan, who backed amnesty, was wrong?
...Poizner thinks immigrants come here for government incentives. Um, no. They come here for work because CEOs like you and Whitman want them to do so. What a clueless moron.
...NBC4's Conan Nolan asking some good questions here about the inexperience of both Poizner and Whitman, and how they'll work with a Democratic legislature they spend so much time bashing. Poizner says he'll try to work with legislators, but will go to voters if legislature won't play along. Yeah, because that worked SO well in 2005 for Arnold Schwarzenegger.
...Whitman says "imagine what this state will look like with Jerry Brown as governor." Um, look around.
...Whitman now attacks Jerry Brown as some kind of tax and spend liberal. I wish he were! His record as governor was actually very fiscally conservative and he's not proposing new taxes.
Meg Whitman's campaign is a juggernaut. She's got famous Republican consultants all over the place, and she's got enough money to blanket TV with more Meg-ifornia spots than you'd ever want to see.
But despite all the "talent", the campaign is going off the rails. Yesterday, there was the whole brouhaha about not taking press questions at a press event, but that wasn't it. Later that evening, her campaign team kicked out Jeremy Thompson from an event. Jeremy had been invited, RSVP'd, and then when he went into the event, they told him that he had to leave or they were going to call the cops. Check out his twitter feed for more details.
But, Steve Poizner's web video to the right here has the best moment (or the worst, depending on where you stand) for Whitman. At a "town hall" Whitman had some of the audience members re-ask questions because eMeg messed up the answer the first time. Apparently it wasn't so much a town hall, as a campaign ad.
Thing is, the Whitman campaign team is trying to run this like a corporate operation. You know, you can call for do-overs when you are shooting with your employees. However, you don't get any Mulligans in a campaign. As tightly as Sarah Pompei would like to run the Whitman ship, that's not how campaigns work.
You'd think with all the experienced people on this staff, they'd have figured out how to run a town hall by now. But apparently, no, not so much. It looks like this is a junior high class president's campaign instead of a campaign for governor of the state of California with all the missteps they've made.
Steve Poizner is rich. Just not as rich as Meg Whitman. So, instead of buying as much media time as money can buy, he's attacking her for not running away from the public.
From Poizner's perspective, Whitman is running towards the center, and he's hoping to gather the Republican base. But the troubling thing is that if you are to listen to what Whitman is saying, you would have no clue which direction she would take the state. And frankly, her ads don't help very much either. So far all we know is that she wants to lay off 40,000 state workers, but has no plan on how to maintain services or actually fix the budget issues.
Oh, and right, she would toss the environment to the mercy of the corporations, because regulating for environmental protection is too long-sighted. You know, we have to think for the now.
Any way, props to the Poizner campaign, this video is way more slick than I could have cobbled together with my aging MacBook.
The move by republicans and polluters to suspend/kill AB 32, California's Global Warming Solutions Act that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and spur green job growth, was dealt a devastating blow on Friday -- one of the authors of the much-cited (and much-criticized) Varshney/Tootelian report (VTR), which predicts an economic catastrophe if California implements AB 32, is now backing away from the report's claims.
Facing yet another round of criticism -- this time in a report by Stanford University economist Jim Sweeney that found VTR to be "highly biased...based on poor logic and unsound economic analysis" and overstates the costs of AB 32 "by a factor of at least 10" -- Sanjay Varshney has refused to defend his report's claims. When asked by a reporter for the Sacramento Business Journal to respond to Sweeney's criticism, Varshney, who is Dean of the Business School at California State University Sacramento, would only say, "I haven't really kept up with the debate. It will be very difficult for me to comment." (You need to be a subscriber to see the full article.)
Hardly what you'd call a full-throated defense, or even a boilerplate response about his confidence in both his methods and his conclusions. And Varshney should be well-prepared to address the kind of criticism found in the Stanford report since it echoes criticisms found by other economists, as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The main and most obvious criticism of VTR is that it only looks at the projected costs of implementing AB 32 ($24.9 billion) while purposefully omitting any of the savings that AB 32 would generate ($40.4 billion) -- a net savings of $15.5 billion.
I'm a bit of a cynic, and don't typically fall for the populist rhetoric. Populist action? Yes. Rhetoric? Not as much. I'm all about taking banks to the woodshed, but don't waste my time talking about it, just do it.
And the tax returns issue is something of a blend of the two. It's more than mere rhetoric, as the state does have some interest in knowing just exactly how much you are earning, and where it is coming from. These things tend to sway policy makers. Releasing tax returns has sort of become a standard of the least you can get away with. You have to do at least that much. Arnold Schwarzenegger has released his tax records for election purposes, as has Steve Westly, Whitman's colleague at eBay.
But Whitman, she won't really say if she is going to do that:
"We will obviously comport with all the filing requirements for the state of California when you run for governor, and I may release my tax returns," Whitman said in an interview at the Luxe Hotel in Bel Air. "We'll see. But I'll do it on my own timetable and not in response to the unions that are fronting for Jerry Brown."
State campaign rules require candidates to disclose certain general financial interests prior to elections, but tax returns are not among them. Still, many wealthy candidates, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Controller Steve Westly, released their returns in past races. (LA Times blog)
Nice little distraction technique by tossing some red meat to the base and running in the other direction. Of course, Level the Playing Field has been applying some pressure in this area, such as sending a letter to former Gov. Pete Wilson (PDF) asking him to either call on Whitman to release her returns or resign from Whitman's campaign. (Wilson used to use the tax returns issue when he was running.) However, conservatives (including Poizner) have discussed the issue. Poizner says that he definitely will release his returns in order to create the "most open and accessible campaign."
So what is it that Whitman has to hide? Where is it that her money is coming and going to? And why is she trying to hide that information? Thing is, in the age of the internet, what wants to get out, will get out. Whitman can either try to hide her record, and get surprised by it later, or she can just open up now. Still, I'm not holding my breath for openness from the woman who is trying to buy her way into the governor's office.
Field Poll released its polling data on the governor's race (PDF), and it is about what you would expect. Whitman leading Poizner, Brown leading both. But the numbers themselves are worthy of note. First, with Campbell out of the race, Poizner's made it out of the single digits!
Of course, he's only made it out of single digits with the help of Tom Campbell's exit. And Campbell's support seems to have pretty evenly split between Whitman and Poizner. With or without Campbell in the race, Poizner has a long way to go to catch Whitman.
And that's made tougher by the fact that Whitman just dropped another $20 million in the race, likely breaking the all-time record for self-funding. This brings her total to $39 million, but is only the beginning. She has said in the past that she could imagine spending $150 million in the race, much of that coming from her own bank account.
And while it has pretty much buried Poizner's petty self-spending, there's a long way to go to run Jerry Brown under. Brown holds sizable leads over both Whitman (10%) and Poizner (17%).
However, both these figures are down markedly from the last poll in October, when Brown held a 21% lead over Whitman. Of course, this should be expected as Whitman is running media up and down the state, and you know, campaigning.
If you want to see something that should send a shiver up and down any progressive's spine, watch this Whitman campaign video. It's not remarkable so much for the content, I mean, campaigns frequently try to appeal to women. Rather, it is the overwhelming campaign organization that they tangentially discuss. They have paid field staff up and down the state. They have several communications staff. In short, they have an enviable campaign operation that is prepared to wage a campaign for the the 21st century.
This is what you can do when you know you have pretty much unlimited resources. Jerry Brown is doing fine on the fundraising front. He's raised a lot of cash, and his burn rate is stunningly low. Yet, when you are going against a candidate with no real spending restraints, how much money is enough? And when does the campaign begin?
Steve Poizner appeared on the John and Ken show (you know, the heads on a pike guys). He was there to show that he was one with the Tea Party people, and was going to slash and burn through the state government. He spent a lot of time on how he's slashed the Department of Insurance. He, it's easy if you just let the insurance companies watch themselves right? Who needs regulators?
Anyway, he was then asked for contrasts between himself and the Meg Whitman. Here's a transcript of a portion of his response.
STEVE POIZNER: Well you figure her out, because on one hand she tries to come across tough on the environment because she knows she's on the spot now in the Republican primary, on the other hand, in 2007 and 2008 she gave $300,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund. Now Google the Environmental Defense Fund, they're suing farmers over the Delta Smelt? You ask her, how can she do that? How can she actually endorse and campaign for Barbara Boxer in 2006? Now, how come she didn't vote most of her life?
Emphasis mine. Go back and read that again. Poizner is saying that Whitman is "playing" tough on the environment, while he, in fact, really is "tough on the environment." What does that mean? Has there been anything more terrifying come out of a candidates lips with respect to the environment than this?
Does this mean that Poizner himself will go around kicking down trees and digging holes in the search for oil in state parks? Or will he just allow corporations free reign of the state?
Whatever the meaning, it opens a window into what it would mean to elect either of these candidates. We are not only talking about suspension of AB 32, we're talking about candidates that are looking for ways that they can crawl over themselves to sell out the environment. It's not just insulting to environmentalists, it's downright scary.
Just as Tom Campbell announced he was dropping out of the California governor's race to run for the United States Senate, one of the two remaining Republican candidates in the race ramped up his attack on California's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32).
Steve Poizner-not to be outdone by fellow candidate Meg Whitman's announcement in fall 2009 that she would suspend AB 32 on her first day in office as governor-put out a press release this week announcing his support for the so-called "jobs" initiative" (actually an outright attack on AB 32) that will appear on the California ballot in November 2010 if anti-environmental forces can gather enough signatures for it to qualify.
Poizner's and Whitman's attacks on California's landmark global warming law have earned them unflattering nicknames from Calbuzz: "Smokestack Steve" and "Monoxide Meg."
It is increasingly clear that Californians who care about our state's natural beauty and the health of our communities must mobilize to "Build a Greener Governor" (http://www.greengov2010.org/) before the candidates, including the undeclared Democratic candidate Jerry Brown, take this race to the bottom on the environment any further.
This anti-AB 32 initiative is just the latest chapter in a sustained and coordinated effort to roll back the progress the Golden State has made against global warming and greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our health, our economy and our planet.
In a new PPIC poll, Attorney General Jerry Brown narrowly leads Meg Whitman for the governor's race.
Whitman dominates with 32 percent support among Republican voters, leading former South Bay Rep. Tom Campbell by 20 points and state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner by 24 points, according to the Public Policy Institute of California's first survey on the 2010 governor's race.
*** *** ***
Brown, a former mayor of Oakland, leads Whitman, who has never run for public office, by just six points, 43 to 37 percent. He holds more robust leads over Campbell, the former state finance director and dean of UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, 46 to 34 percent, and wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneur Poizner, 47 to 31 percent.(SF Chronicle)
The numbers are solidifying a bit, as the Republicans get to know their three candidates. The right-wing grassroots activists still aren't all that excited with their candidates, but a consensus seems to be settling around Meg Whitman.
As for Jerry Brown, I still feel that despite Brown's protestations, he should have announced his candidacy by now. I understand his desire to just do his job, but in the here and now of campaigning for such a high profile position, a robust campaign operation is nearly mandatory. I have faith that Brown can build a team to win as he starts spending money in the new year, but I would prefer to see a lot more groundwork being laid now. This race is a bit too close for comfort.
UPDATE by Robert: The crosstabs are even more damning about Brown's weak standing with what should be his base. His favorability among Democrats is 52% favorable, 19% unfavorable, with 29% undecided. That's actually pretty low for such a high-profile Dem. Among independents it's much worse: 34-39, with 23% undecided.
Brown also has potentially big problems with younger voters. Voters under age 35 - who, ironically enough, were either born in the year Brown was first elected governor, 1974, or later - have a whopping 69% "no opinion" of the once and future governor.
This all proves the point I've been making often this fall, which is that unless Brown can excite progressives and younger voters, he is going to have an extremely difficult time winning this election. The canoe theory appears to have sprung a leak.
In recent days, there's been quite the hubub over in the Republican primary for governor. Meg Whitman has been spending money like it's going out of style, which it most definitely is not. She's bought some pricey raido time, especially in the SoCal market. Meanwhile, Steve Poizner has been conserving his stash. A few days ago, Team Poinzer wrote a letter on FlashReport explaining that decision. CalBuzz has been doing some looking into the decisions on both sides of the fight, and seems to like the Whitman strategy
Prime example: Whitman's multi-million dollar investment in an ongoing, low-profile if costly, radio campaign - designed to boost her name ID and three-point platform of creating jobs, cutting spending and fixing education -- has been a shrewd bit of communications strategy. (CalBuzz)
Of course their source for this opinion is "one of the best in the business, Bill Carrick." For those of you who don't recall that name, he's the guy that did those awesome Phil Angelides ads. So, you know, for this opinion, caveat emptor.
That being said, the CalBuzz piece has a greater point about Whitman building a sense of inevitability within the GOP for Whitman. While that might be true within the Sacto bubble and the OC politirati, there is still a lot of time left in the race, and most people won't engange until the calendar flips over. But, given the fact that Poizner hasn't seemed to mind opening up his wallet for other elections early and often, why not put a couple hundred K into some sort of targeted ad buy now? Is he trying to limit his own investment in the race, or is he really intent on going big in the New year?
Either way, it seems that Poizner doesn't plan on putting the kind of money into the race that Whitman seems willing to pay to win the race. At least the media companies can expect a big few months as they go toe to toe.
The folks in Fresno are concerned about the water bond. Very concerned. They need to get it passed so that they can reap the massive windfall they'll get in undervalued water. So, today the Fresno Bee news blog is working on pegging down the candidates for governor.
Of course, this being the Fresno Bee, they are looking first to the two moneyed Republican competitors. First, they got Whitman on record on Thursday supporting the bond. Today, they question Poizner's fealty to the farmers. He might be a closet fan of the evil fisherman!
Gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner said more water storage is critical for California's long-term economic future. But as he campaigned today in Fresno, Poizner remained noncommittal about an $11 billion water bond measure on the ballot for next November. (Fresno Bee)
Of course, the article divides support of new dams into questions of whether you want to "help farmers" or not. When, for Republicans anyway, the real question is do you believe the taxpayers should be paying for this water project. As it is currently outlined, the water plan will vastly increase the percentage of costs paid from the general fund, from around 3-5% to 20-40%.
If we are going to ignore other infrastructure, and slash education funding, I think whether farmers should be getting subsidized water is an important question for the state. As it stands right now, this water bond puts the Westlands farmers, and their Sean Hannity temper tantrums above higher education and in-home support services.
I'm not sure how else you can take this latest web video from the Poizner campaign.
In the video, a mechanical fish sings "I will survive" with some narration about Meg Whitman's foundation, which gave almost all of its donations to environmental causes. In most sane groups, that would be a good thing, but in the Republican Party? Of course not.
The whole video is beyond troubling. It explicitly advocates for the extinction of a species. No mitigating factors, no explanation that there even the most pro-farmer scientists and water experts believe there can be ways around killing the smelt. Heck, the farmers themselves want to build a peripheral canal, which would be at least somewhat better than just running the pumps 24/7.
And of course, no consideration of the fishermen who make their living based on the water that the farmers are trying to use to grow cotton where it just shouldn't be grown. No mention of the fact that some of the cheap water is being sold to residential water districts by farmers at a premium, and the farmers then leave their fields to lie fallow.
No, this is simply about a bloodthirsty attempt to eliminate a species because it is politically expedient. I wonder if the residents of Rapa Nui (aka Easter Island) made videos about wanting to cut down the last of the trees on the island in the name of progress.
At any rate, Meg Whitman Secretly Agrees with Us! W00t!
