Fakeroversy In The Governor's Race

It must be tough when you're running for governor and you have no idea what you're doing, so you figure that, since every candidate needs to start some sort of a scandal against their opponent, you'll just do that and see how it goes. While I don't recommend that approach, if you're going to take that route, might I suggest coming up with a scandal that people would give a fat rat's ass about? Acting all indignant because someone referred to you as a whore is really not going to do much to help you. It will be great fun for those who enjoy mocking you, however.

See, Meg Whitman is running for governor of California. For some reason, her being at the helm when eBay kind of rode itself to its own success is supposed to give her some sort of credibility as the Republican candidate. Well, that and the $140 million of her own money that she has poured into her campaign to get the nomination. (Apparently, she thinks the governor's seat is some sort of Buy It Now dealio.) And lately, she's been rocked by allegations of a former housekeeper that she...um...well....it's not real clear to me exactly what it is that she's being accused of doing. It might be that she didn't treat the hired help all that well, but I'm not totally sure about this. The fact that her ex-housekeeper was in this country illegally, used a fake Social Security number while Meg employed her and was then fired when Meg found out somehow plays a part in all of this, but again, I'm not quite sure how. It's definitely a fakeroversy (fake controversy), but I still have trouble grasping all of the straws that it contains.

Now, after that became the hooplah du jour (complete with Gloria Allred, the world's most awful human being, at the housekeeper's helm), Meg's campaign needed to have someone on her opponent, Jerry Brown. What did they come up with? I guess they had a hard time coming up with anything of substance because apparently, one of his staffers referred to her as a whore, so that's what they went with. Wait. What?

Yep. According to ABC News, Jerry Brown "...left a phone message in early September for a union official whose endorsement he was seeking, but apparently forgot to hang up...And either Brown or a staffer -- there is some dispute -- uses the word "whore" to describe his Republican rival Meg Whitman." Hmm. How about a little context to go with all of that nothing-ness there?

OK. The first part of the conversation that Brown has with one of his staffers after he thought that he had hung up goes something along the lines of Brown saying: "Do we want to put an ad out? … That I have been warned if I crack down on pensions, I will be – that they'll go to Whitman, and that's where they'll go because they know Whitman will give 'em, will cut them a deal, but I won't." So what he's saying (behind closed doors and totally off the record, as he didn't know that he didn't hang up) is that he's not going to cut a deal with the unions, but Whitman is, despite her saying publicly that she's not beholden to any group.

It's after that question that the staffer (or someone else) says, "What about saying she's a whore?" That's quite the idea. Call your opponent a whore in your ads. I don't know that I think it's the most politically savvy move, but Jerry Brown seemed to love it, as he responded, "Well, I'm going to use that...It proves you've cut a secret deal to protect the pensions." I don't know if calling her a whore would prove that, per se. But it would show that you're not afraid to call someone a whore!

Once Whitman's side became aware of this colorful depiction of her, they immediately issued a pansy-ass response. "The use of the term 'whore' is an insult to both Meg Whitman and to the women of California. This is an appalling and unforgivable smear against Meg Whitman. At the very least Mr. Brown tacitly approved this despicable slur and he himself may have used the term at least once on this recording,"

Really? It's an insult to the women of California? How is that? I'm a woman of California and I'm not insulted by Jerry Brown's staffers calling Meg Whitman a whore. It's hard to say if I'd be insulted if they called me a whore. Then again, I don't get insulted easily. That's a weak response. You know what would have been a better response? To DENY that you're acting like a whore by being in bed with the unions and promising them deals in exchange for their endorsements. Now THAT would have been something!

Did she dispute the essence of why they were calling her a whore? Not that I can find. No, she just decided to take the "You hurt my feelings" angle on it. And that seems to be how this is being reported. Why is it that we're focusing on the alleged name calling instead of the fact that she seems to be cutting back room deals with unions? Why aren't we focusing on the fact that Jerry Brown said in private (or what he thought was private) that he wasn't going to make deals with the unions? For him to have said that in private seems to lend credibility to him really meaning that. After all, why would you say something like that if you didn't mean it? It's not like you knew the whole world was going to hear you. It seems pretty credible to me.

But no. Instead, Meg Whitman wants to us to be all up in arms that Jerry Brown's staffer called her a whore. Well, I'm putting down my arms, as they are not up. This is ridiculous. Her allegedly cutting deals with the unions in order to win their support is the real story here. But she's not mentioning that. She's just whining about being called a whore. And by the way, if she is cutting back room deals with the unions in exchange for their support, then she absolutely is a whore. A big, big whore. Whore.

You know, if she can't handle being called a name, I'm not real confident in her ability to lead this ridiculously corrupt state out of the s***hole that it has been in for years. And if she's being a sneaky weasel and saying one thing to the public, but doing another thing in private, I'm absolutely positive that she won't be able to get anything done. Please don't take this as an endorsement for Jerry Brown, however. While the real story might be whether or not she is actually cutting deals, I think that the secondary story might be that Jerry Brown can't figure out how to hang up his phone after leaving a message. It doesn't do much to distract folks from the fact that he's a little old.

Separated at Birth From Meg Whitman

Since I don't plan on voting for either Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown for governor of California, I'm just going to take this opportunity to point out the various different people that they each resemble. OK, fine. Jerry only resembles one that I can think of and this entire post is just an outlet for how frustrated I am with how Meg Whitman has ran her campaign. Hopelessness tends to make one trivial.

The only person that I could find that looked like Jerry Brown was that guy from the Geico commercials. (As a side note, I'd like to point out that Geico has way too many mascots. The cavemen. That cute little lizard. The money with the eyeballs on it. The deep talking guy. I can't keep up. Everyone loves the gecko. Why not just have him carry the ball? He's not real, you know. It's not like it would be animal cruelty or anything.) Behold!

I had absolutely no trouble what so ever in finding folks that Meg Whitman looked like. Mind you, I just said "folks". I did not say "attractive folks". I also didn't alude to anything that would indicate that these comparisons will be anything flattering. Good Lord, no. Far from it, in fact. Up first, Meg Whitman and Vigo the Carpathian of Ghostbusters 2 fame. Behold!

Don't cross the streams, Meg. I just realized that the majority of my comparisons are with people who pretty much had their heydays back in the days of yore. The most modern one that I could come up with might be surprising at first. But I'm telling, you put a blonde wig on Ricky Gervais and they would be more identical than those Olsen twins.

See? Now let's go back to the days of vintage television to see several other folks with whom she could have been separated at birth from. Take the Skipper from Gilligan's Island, for example. He's almost a dead ringer for the woman. Or she is for him. I'm never sure how you're supposed to word comparisons like that. Whatever. Behold, anyway!

Next up, from The Andy Griffith Show, please note the incredible resemblance to a one Aunt Bea. It's eerie is what it is.

My personal favorite in the vintage TV category would have to be the one below. She really does look like Fred Mertz! She could have been married to Ethel. Although, in the days when I Love Lucy was on, she would have had some 'splaining to do if that had been the case. Would the Ricardo's have been cool with a couple of lesbians living next door? Oh, sure, if it had been a couple of gay guys, they would have got along just swimmingly with ol' Ricky (who probably dabbled in the gay on the side). Two lesbians wouldn't have had much in common with them, though.

Now, I realize that with the exception of an ancient and prudish actress from the 1960s, the only folks that I have compared Meg Whitman to are men. Does that mean that I think that she should pay a little more attention to her image? Not necessarily. I mean, after all, her image was good enough to sport on the front of the hundred dollar bill, right?

Oh. Wait. That's...that's...yeah, that's not her. Hmm. Awkward.

The No-Platform Platform

Yesterday, I discussed the importance of not sounding like a crazy person if you're attempting to run for public office. Today, I'll be discussing the importance of sounding like something if you're running for public office. You can't keep things a secret. Oh, sure, you can try, but how long is that really going to work for? Those second and third wives and going to catch on eventually. Ah, but I kid. About the wives, that is. Not about not keeping things secret. Seriously, you're going to have to let people in on what it is that you're going to do to, say, balance a budget. You can't say "I'm not going to tell you." Or can you?

Whether you can or not, Jerry Brown (who is running for governor of California against Meg "My Money Grows On Trees" Whitman) has taken up just that strategy. According to SF Gate, Jerry Brown "...recently visited The (San Francisco) Chronicle's editorial board, he brought with him a large three-ring binder with his ideas on how to bring state spending back into the black." Oh, good! "But he wouldn't tell us what was in the book." Wait. He what now?

Correct. He wouldn't tell them what was in the book. He wouldn't tell them much of anything, really. Let's look at a few examples.

When asked what he, as governor, "...would do that state employee labor unions, which are spending millions to get him elected, won't like. He answered, "Well, I'm certainly not going to tell you now." Hmm. Granted, I agree that if you plan on doing things to people that they're not going to like, it's probably not the best idea to mention that ahead of time. But don't you have to come up with a better answer than, "I'm not telling"? I think you kind of do.

But Jerry Brown apparently did not. Not only was he not telling anyone about that, he also wasn't telling anyone about how he plans to negotiate with various groups, stating, "I'm not going to reveal my negotiating strategy now. I'm going to try to push everybody together." Soooo...that's not his strategy? The pushing together? It kind of sounds like a strategy. Is he trying to fake us out? The ol' Statue of Liberty play? Something like that? What?

When a one John Diaz, who is the Editorial Page Editor for the Chronicle, asked "...what tough calls Brown was willing to make, he answered, "There's only a process that will lead us to where we're going." Oh, OK. See...wait. There's only a....and it will...huh. Yeah, those are just words. They don't seem to be strung together to say a whole lot. Hmm.

Look, California is facing a 19 billion dollar deficit in the budget. I don't know that you can run for governor and insist that you can solve the budget problem, while at the same time keeping it a secret. As it stands right now, I'm not voting for either one of them. Meg Whitman is out of touch with reality (as evidenced by her spending $108 million of her own money just to get the nomination to run). And Jerry Brown is playing "I've Got A Secret" and sounding a bit like a doddering old man, which is causing me to use a Grandpa Simpson voice in my head whenever I read anything that Brown has said. (It's fun. Try it!) And I know that not enough people will vote third party for it to make a difference. So either way, we're screwed. With Meg Whitman, we'll know right away how we're being screwed and with Jerry Brown, we'll just have to wait a while until he wants to tell us how we're being screwed. Either way, nothing is going to be getting better any time soon.