meg whitman: Page 1
Meg Whitman has a nanny issue: it's been discovered that she employed an illegal alien for nine years. Whitman claims that she fired the housekeeper in question in 2009 right after the housekeeper told her she was here illegally. The housekeeper alleges various forms of abuse and is represented by none other than Gloria Allred.
The irony and the bittersweet runs deep:
1. This, to a very small extent, helps explain why our elites support massive and illegal immigration: for purely personal corrupt reasons. Why hire a demanding American citizen when you can hire two compliant illegal aliens?
2. According to TMZ (link, !) the press release for today's news conference featuring the housekeeper would have her "tell[ing] how she suffered as a long-time, Latina household employee in Meg Whitman's home." Could they be even more transparent about playing the race card in order to get the Hispanic vote? Expect the housekeeper to be featured on Univision and Telemundo tonight and perhaps throughout the election.
3. And, that follows Whitman bending over backwards to get the Hispanic vote, going as far as putting up billboards in Spanish highlighting her opposition to both the Arizona immigration law and Proposition 187.
4. Given the Whitman has been almost as bad as John McCain and George W Bush on immigration matters, one wonders what she would have had to do to avoid having the race card played on her. All that outreach and pandering and bending over backwards did her little good and bought her little goodwill. One of the key lessons to be obtained from this - one Whitman will ignore - is that pandering only makes things worse.
5. It would be sweet justice if this issue reduces Whitman's chances, but the bitter aftertaste is that it would encourage more race card playing and more Allred-style smear attempts.
UPDATE: From mercurynews.com/news/ci_16205893:
[Allred] claims Whitman received a letter from the Social Security Administration on April 22, 2003, saying the Social Security number provided by the housekeeper did not match the name on file.
Obviously, the no match letter should have been a strong tip-off that Whitman was employing an illegal alien and her first step should have been to demand proper identification and fire her if it wasn't provided. It's worth pointing out that Whitman's friends in the business community joined with the far-left to oppose no-match.
Meg Whitman highlights how much she agrees with Jerry Brown, still misleads about immigration - 07/16/10
Meg Whitman offers "Americans must come together to address the problem of illegal immigration" (meg4.me/hvud, ), which is basically a rewrite of the previous misleading Whitman editorial about immigration. Since the new editorial and the old one repeat the same lines, see that link for part of why she's misleading, and the below for additional reasons.
But, first, here's this admission that should be more than a bit shocking to many of the Republicans who chose her over Steve Poizner (bolding added):
In this race, my Democratic opponent, Jerry Brown, has said very little about most issues, including immigration. However, from what he has said, former Governor Brown appears to share many of my positions on immigration. He, too, is against Proposition 187 and opposes Arizona's new immigration law. Former Governor Brown joins with me to oppose (drivers licenses) for illegal immigrants. He has endorsed tougher sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants and spoken out against sanctuary cities, and he opposes blanket amnesty that would grant full-citizenship rights without first requiring illegal immigrants to pay a fine and learn English... Clearly, when examining our positions on immigration, there is very little over which Jerry Brown and I disagree.
In other words, she's the same as a Democrat on immigration. If you're a Republican who supports our immigration laws and who opposes amnesty, and you helped nominate Whitman, how does that make you feel?
She then goes on to make the misleading statement that neither she nor Brown support amnesty; she's playing words games as discussed on the reform not amnesty page.
She also supports massive immigration:
If the next great inventor lives in India, China or Mexico today, we should welcome that inventor coming to America legally to create jobs and prosperity here.
Why exactly? Why should we braindrain the world? Isn't it - in the long run - better for us not to braindrain the world? What if, in order to get one inventor we have to allow 100,000 non-inventors to come here; is that worth it? What if those coming here have "baggage" of some kind, such as continuing to be loyal to their countries of origin? Whitman's breezy, blanket policy shows that she hasn't thought about this in depth.
If a segment of our economy has a shortage of American workers, then we should look across our borders for guest workers who can help American businesses succeed by working here legally, but without full U.S. citizenship.
Obviously, with about five workers for every available job, the last thing we have is a shortage of workers. What position would we be in if we had a Whitman-style program now? Would we be able to deport our "guests", or wouldn't the far-left and the Democrats work to keep them here? Considering that's what they're doing regarding illegal aliens, the answer to that is clear. And, what she supports would lead to building up a class of "legalized illegal aliens"; the Democrats and the far-left would try to build them into a power base and their status would cause social problems. And, of course, many of them would have U.S. citizen children making it difficult to ever deport them. See guest workers for more.
Then, this highly misleading statement:
Finally, our doors should always be open to honest and well-intentioned people facing the terror of political oppression in their homelands. Closing our doors to legal immigration would be counter to everything our nation stands for.
The most any political leader wants is a moratorium, and even under a moratorium we'd still allow refugees. Whitman is just trying to mislead people; hopefully no one should be surprised at that by now.
 Full URL:
As she campaigned this spring, (Meg Whitman) said she would send state and local officials into California businesses to look for illegal immigrants – her own version of federal immigration workplace inspections.
But her campaign now says she would wait to act until the federal government institutes a "fail-safe" way for employers to verify workers' status – an effort that has been more than a decade in the making.
The article has quotes promoting the program from a "glossy 48-page policy agenda book that Whitman mailed to hundreds of thousands of voters and posted on her campaign website this spring", part of which is now out of date. The article also quotes Paul Wenger, president of the California Farm Bureau as saying:
"Believe me, we are working with the (Whitman) campaign to tell them that you need to take a look at this... You know how politics are. She probably got pushed over a little further (in her immigration views) than what she really thinks."
Meg Whitman highlights opposition to Arizona immigration law on Spanish-language billboard - 07/08/10
The pandering by the Meg Whitman campaign has reached a new low, although I fully expect her to get even worse. The latest low is a billboard in Spanish (pictured right or below) which highlights her opposition to both the new Arizona immigration law and to Proposition 187.
The story about this (link) says that's a Whitman billboard and the picture is a screengrab of a video, so I'm assuming that it's been verified as coming from the campaign. And, it matches what she's said in previous pandering attempts, but somehow as a billboard it seems more in-your-face to the millions of Californians who support Arizona's law.
Your job: make sure as many Californians as possible know where Whitman stands.
UPDATE: Right after I posted this I found "Whitman Campaign expands Spanish-language advertising" (megwhitman.com/story/7611/
The Meg Whitman for Governor Campaign has launched a Spanish-language outdoor advertising campaign as part of a comprehensive outreach effort to California's Latino voters.
The Spanish-language ads appear on billboards and bus stops in several Southern California and Central Valley communities.
One ad reads, "MÁS TRABAJOS," or "MORE JOBS." A second ad features a quote from Meg Whitman, "NO a la Proposición 187 y NO a la Ley de Arizona," or "NO on Proposition 187 and NO on the Arizona Law."
"This represents the next step in our continued effort to communicate with Latino voters," campaign spokesman Hector Barajas said. "While these ads help clear up some misconceptions, Meg Whitman understands the importance of our Latino community and the need to get all Californians working again."
Your job is to communicate with Americans - whatever their race or ethnicity - who support the Arizona law and let them know where Whitman stands.
UPDATE 2: Here's a clearer picture, from this:
Meg Whitman panders to Hispanics; ad opposes Arizona law and Prop 187; Meg's Fantasy World - 06/20/10
California governor candidate Meg Whitman has launched a new Hispanic outreach (megwhitman.com/latinos.php), including a few ads and a list of places to blog  (visit those and offer rebuttals). Two of the ads are in Spanish and the English/Spanish scripts are at . The video of one of those is at peekURL.com/vc859ap and the description provided is that it "highlights why Meg is a different kind of candidate". Indeed: it says "She is the Republican who opposes the Arizona law and opposed Proposition 187."
The English-language video is here , entitled "Una Nueva California". And, that's where we get to Meg's Fantasy World. On that she says:
"...our most important resource is our young people. The Latino kids attending public schools in California today will be tomorrow's doctors, engineers, businessmen, and teachers. I want to give these kids a world-class education. I want them to be able to go as far in life as their God-given talent will take them... right now, California is near the very bottom in math, science, and reading. That's not acceptable to me."
Now, see How immigration changed California for the worse (education, income inequality...) Certainly, a large number of Hispanics will become "tomorrow's doctors, engineers, businessmen, and teachers". However, those percentages will be lower than for other groups, and those other groups aren't growing as quickly. It's an indisputable fact that massive Hispanic immigration has led to California being "near the very bottom in math, science, and reading". Now, perhaps Whitman has a magical plan that would turn things around, but it's much more likely that she's just a corrupt, Arnold Schwarzenegger-style hack who's living in - or trying to auction off - a fantasy world.
The results of the California primary are not at all pretty from a pro-American immigration position.
Earlier this week, California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman showed once again that she's not qualified for the job she seeks. Specifically, she expressed to The Politico  her dismay at her Republican opponent Steve Poizner raising the issue of immigration and said:
"You haven’t seen an ad from me with the border fence...  That has been Steve’s campaign. My campaign has been around jobs and spending and education."
Needless to say, massive/illegal immigration is deeply intertwined with "jobs and spending and education". Low-skilled illegal aliens are driving down wages and taking jobs from low-skilled U.S. citizens in California, at the same time as higher-skilled legal immigrants and workers are driving down wages and taking jobs from higher-skilled U.S. citizens in California. Illegal aliens and their children cause school overcrowding and cause such things as the LAUSD having to get a $14 billion bond to build new schools.
That and many other forms of spending have played a role in driving California to the brink. But, it gets worse: all of the massive/illegal immigration gives even more power to the free-spending far-left in the California legislature. You can't fix California's problems and reduce spending, increase the number of jobs, and raise academic performance without dealing with immigration.
But, instead of dealing with this courageously and forthrightly, Meg Whitman is living in a fantasy world where she can ignore such a vital, fundamental issue.
Related: Tim Kaine also said something like the quote above.
More on that article later.
 Needless to say, Politico doesn't mention anything like the above but simply goes for the low-hanging fruit and points out that she does have one ad featuring the fence: peekURL.com/vw4qhft
Sacramento Bee Political Editor Amy Chance offers "Ad Watch: Poizner launches largely misleading attack on Whitman" . Referring to a recent anti-Meg Whitman ad from Steve Poizner which claims that Whitman "supports Obama's amnesty for illegal aliens", Chance writes:
"Amnesty" is a hot-button term that exaggerates Whitman's views on illegal immigration. She said in October she supports a policy "where people stand at the back of the line, they pay a fine, they do some things that would ultimately allow a path to legalization." Now she says she was referring to creating a guest worker program.
Read what Meg Whitman said about immigration back in October; she spouted a series of amnesty talking points. Whatever she says she meant, her page about this issue  - accessed at post time - says: "Meg is 100% opposed to any form of amnesty. As governor, will advocate for a comprehensive federal immigration solution that secures the border."
That's highly misleading, because the comprehensive immigration reform she promises to "advocate for" is amnesty. Or, at least that's how it will be perceived by millions of potential illegal aliens around the world. Whitman is just playing word games; see the reform not amnesty for a longer discussion. "Fact-checkers" like Amy Chance should tell you that rather than enabling Whitman's attempt to deceive.
California has the most to gain from sensible immigration reform, and the most to lose from the failed status quo... While I am a strong proponent of legal immigration, I am 100% opposed to granting amnesty to immigrants who entered the country illegally.
Whitman has already made it clear that she does in fact support amnesty, she just doesn't call it amnesty. In the quote at the last link she supports a path to legalization via a plan like comprehensive immigration reform. Whitman and others (such as John McCain) just play word games, pretending that the "comprehensive immigration reform" or "sensible immigration reform" they support isn't amnesty; see the reform not amnesty page for a longer discussion.
Too often, the rhetoric surrounding this issue has been overly divisive and disrespectful to Latino American citizens. The country needs to have a thoughtful debate about how we stop the tide of illegal immigration that strains budgets and angers taxpayers. But the immigration debate must take place in a measured way that reflects our national aspirations toward tolerance, hope and opportunity... [then, later on:] Taken together, these steps would make a significant difference in reducing the burdens of illegal immigration without casting unneeded and discourteous aspersions on Latino American citizens and driving them away from the Republican Party.
She's basically calling those who oppose massive illegal activity - including a large portion of the GOP base - racists. By doing that, she's giving more power to far-left racial power groups that also want to smear those who oppose massive illegal activity, such as the National Council of La Raza. Whitman isn't taking on such far-left racial power groups, she's helping them.
As a Republican, I believe it's important to both continue our rich tradition of protecting the rule of law while diligently reaching out to the millions of Latinos who share our values.
What exactly are those values? Per Whitman, they include looking the other way on massive illegal activity and those who've supported it. Whitman would have the GOP reach out not just to those Latinos who support our laws, but also to those who don't support our laws. Whitman isn't drawing a line in the sand; she's including those who think the border is a false construct. She's not drawing the line against extremists or those who hold questionable views.
...To remove [the jobs magnet encouraging illegal immigration], we have to give employers the tools they need to do the right thing, and then we must strictly enforce the law... We also need to crack down through legislation on sanctuary cities like San Francisco that shield illegal immigrants from federal immigration laws.
The amnesty that she supports would give even more power to the far-left and to the Mexican government. Neither of those groups have much use for immigration enforcement. Whitman doesn't explain (probably because she doesn't realize it or doesn't care) how she'd enforce the laws from an even weaker position than the current one.
But the real key to this issue rests in the hands of Congress and the president. The bottom line is we need more federal Border Patrol resources at the Mexican border. The California congressional delegation needs to work together with other border-state representatives to get something done on border security once and for all.
This is "boob bait for Bubba"; see the secure the border page noting that she falls into the camp of those who harp on border security to mask how weak they are on the other aspects of this issue.
I have been criticized for opposing Proposition 187, which was on the California ballot in 1994. It is true that I am opposed to cutting off public education and healthcare services to immigrant children. I do not believe that kids should be punished for the sins of their parents.
No "immigrant children" were involved, only those here illegally; that's probably not an innocent mistake. It would also be possible for her to oppose some provisions of that law while supporting others, and it would certainly be helpful for her to come out against the under-handed way how the law - supported by about 59% of voters - was blocked.
Steve Poizner isn't a walk in the park, but he's stronger on this issue than Whitman. And, since it's rare to find a major candidate who's at least strong-sounding on immigration, it's important for those who care about these issues to support him, even if that only means defending him against Whitman's misleading attacks.
UPDATE: I corrected a couple of typos, including adding the last "only": even if you don't support Poizner you can still defend him against someone who's bad on this issue. Doing things like that is, of course, too nuanced for some.
Whatever else, Steve Poizner is better than Meg Whitman on immigration (California Republican governor candidates) - 03/11/10
Back in October, California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman visited the border and spouted a series of "business-friendly" immigration talking points; it was like if you could find a Tamar Jacoby talking doll on eBay, but without the latter's self-awareness. Then, last month she gave in to the far-left and turned her back on a supporter who'd inartfully complained about being called a racist. So, if you care about the issues we cover here, she's not an option (unless she wins the primary and, say, her Democratic opponent is Nativo Lopez).
Whitman is competing with California insurance commissioner Steve Poizner, whose position on the immigration issue seems to be a bit better. On the video at peekURL.com/vd7u7dn (attached right or below) he sounds a bit "business-friendly" also, and he harps on secure the border. The latter is sometime a sign that someone isn't serious, but Poizner gets points for bringing up immigration terrorism. In his case - unlike Whitman and most leading Republicans and Democrats - he might actually be mostly serious about securing the border. However, he's also in the "illegal bad, legal good" orbit, extolling the virtues of legal immigration. He's probably not quite in the Carly Fiorina "flood the U.S. with H1Bs" camp, but then again he probably wouldn't serve as an effective counterweight to those like her.
And, from :
At a Republican dinner in Yolo County, in Northern California, Poizner tried to distinguish himself from Whitman by saying that "only one of us thinks of the immigration issue as a state issue and not just a federal one. There is a lot we can do here in California."
In another meeting with activists, Poizner said, “One of my key issues will be illegal immigration and stopping it once and for all; if I have to send the National Guard to the border, I’ll do it.”
Poizner has also said publicly that "illegal immigrants are overwhelming our education, health care and public benefits systems."
The last, fact-based statement is one you'll never hear from cowards like Whitman or Arnold Schwarzenegger, so he at least deserves some degree of support, even if only in a strategic sense. I.e., using him to oppose those who support illegal immigration or at least defending him against them.
Cowardly Meg Whitman disavows councilman who complained about being unjustly called "racist" - 02/03/10
California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has shown that she has little backbone, distancing herself from and disavowing the endorsement of a local official who - after complaining about being unjustly called a racist - has been the target of a leftwing smear campaign. Think of this as yet another "pre-Arnold" example of how she'd govern: cutting and running and giving the far-left more power rather than taking them on.
The backstory is described here:
(At an event, Santa Clarita councilman Bob Kellar) lamented the financial and public safety burdens he believed to be a result of rampant illegal immigration. Kellar reminisced to the crowd about a time when he quoted Teddy Roosevelt before a Council meeting some years ago. Afterwards, Kellar said that he was approached by a few people who said "Bob, you sound like a racist." Kellar's reply was "That's good. If that's what you think I am because I happen to believe in America, I'm a proud racist, you're darn right I am."
I have trouble believing that anyone could think that he was admitting to being a racist, but just in case consider this: "If liking Cheetos is crazy, then I'm crazy!" Someone who says that isn't admitting to being crazy, they're pointing out that liking Cheetos is not crazy. Even five year olds should be able to get that. That does not mean that what Kellar said was the smart way to do things; the opposite is true. However, it shouldn't been too much to expect some degree of intellectual honesty and a grown-up willingness to understand what someone means.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of even younger people on the internet and those trying to take advantage of them; for instance, see the Associated Press article printed at the Washington Post and elsewhere (link, and if anyone can find the reporter's name leave a comment). That article completely fails to provide the necessary context, and probably does so intentionally. A host of other leftwing sources have done the same. This is only one small step up from heavily editing a video in order to put words into someone's mouth, and no one should support it.
Except, of course, Meg Whitman is.
Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman is apparently like a talking doll you might find on that site, except in this case she says pro-business, pro-massive/illegal immigration talking points. Speaking at the border (link):
[She said] it is “simply not practical” to deport the estimated 12.5 million illegal immigrants living and working in the United States. (note: see deportations false choice)
The candidate, 53, said the solution is to find a mechanism that allows them to live here legally. "Can we get a fair program where people stand at the back of the line (note: see immigration line), they pay a fine, they do some things that would ultimately allow a path to legalization?" she asked. (note: see comprehensive immigration reform for some of the many downsides)
Whitman also urged tougher measures against those who hire undocumented workers, and said that as governor "I would be an advocate . . . for the people of California to make sure we really do secure this border." (note: see secure the border)