If you vote for Meg Whitman, you're playing"Russian roulette," because you have no idea what she'll do. She takes both sides of every issue, whether it's illegal immigration, global warming or whatever. She will look you in the face and lie her ass off to get your vote. I am convinced she has no ideology, no political philosophy, she just wants to hold office for the sake of holding office.
As for Jerry Brown, he says in his ads that at this stage in his life, he's ready to make the tough decisions. Tough on whom, Jerry? Tough on the taxpayers, or the public employee unions funding your campaign? I'm guessing his decisions are going to be very, very tough on us taxpayers.
Plus, his line about "this stage of my life" line gives me the creeps. It makes it sound like he's in God's waiting room, and really doesn't care to much what happens here on planet Earth. "At this stage in my life, I really don't care how much you scream. I'm going to do what I think is right, even if you think it's going to ruin your life."Speaking of his stage of life, ponder this political-medical scenario: If you elect Jerry Brown, you're just one stroke away from "Governor Gavin Newsom." Villaraigosa would have a cow if that happened, which is the only "up" side. The rest of us, meanwhile, would get our ox gored.
Bottom line: if you stick with the Democratic and Republican parties, you are totally screwed.
So it's time to go with one of those third parties for this election. Rather than throwing your vote away on a recycled career politician or a prevaricating billionaire, consider opting out of the whole "lesser of two evils" thing, and vote your principals. Vote for Chelene Nightingale, the candidate of the American Independent Party. Her website summarizes her campaign thus:
As a “Tea Party” candidate, our campaign is centered on those issues that you the voter has demanded be addressed. Issues such as confiscatory taxes, illegal immigration, the economy, jobs, education, the 10th amendment, (states’ rights) and a whole host of things are what have us so alarmed today.
I happen to know from personal experience, moreover, that Nightingale is no "Johnny come lately" to the illegal immigration issue. She was a big supporter of Jamiel's Law. Works for me.
Why did I wait so long to endorse her? Because Meg Whitman had the resources to win, and I figured she was the lesser of two evils. Having seen Whitman in action, however, I really have no idea whatsoever what she would do if elected, and no one else does, either.
So I'd rather vote for someone who takes the right position on the issue that is most important to me, and that candidate is Chelene Nightingale. She's getting my vote.
If she wins, great. If she doesn't, well, at least I'll know I did my part; I will have voted for the best candidate, unlike all the people who will have thrown their votes away on Whitman and Brown.
Nightingale has never been governor, or been a multi-billionaire. But you know what? She has always been consistent on the issue of illegal immigration, and that, to me, is the biggest issue confronting our state.
Do I agree with her on everything else? Nope. But so what? The only way you get a candidate who agrees with you on everything is to run for office yourself.
Plus, I'm pretty sure she's not Wiccan.
Brown governed California when the state's debt was a fraction of what it is today. Meg Whitman made a billionaire of herself at eBay. Nightingale filed personal bankruptcy in 2007.
ReplyDeleteYou know who else has filed for bankruptcy?
ReplyDeleteTexaco, Donald Trump, P.T. Barnum, Kim Basinger, Francis Ford Coppola, Walt Disney, David Crosby, Larry King and zillions of other people, especially in this economy.
So, while I think it IS a legitimate point for you to raise, it doesn't tip the balance for me. For one thing, the state is already bankrupt. For another, the financial struggles she has had as a mother trying to make it in this world perhaps make more affordable for us taxpayers.
Russian roulette seems like an exciting game - the ultimate win, lose or maybe even brain dead and oblivious (an interesting outcome in itself) I worry about Meg - she may be another Arnold in a skirt - but I have to give her a try.
ReplyDeleteI realize that most politicians lie in order to win, but Meg is so blatant about it. It's a little scary. I also don't believe that getting rid of 40,000 state workers will result in private sector jobs. Does she think that the money saved by laying off those workers will be used for tax breaks that private businesses will then use to create more jobs? If anything, this recession has taught many businesses that they can get by with a smaller number of employees. They are not going to grow their payrolls just for the heck of it.
ReplyDeleteI'm voting with Walter, for Chelene Nightingale.
ReplyDeleteRussian roulette is never acceptable. Brown screwed up California before and I don't trust Whitman. Besides, at this stage in my life I'd like to see California become a better place. It can only get better, right? Probably not if Brown or Whitman win. If Newsome gets in, I'm leaving the state before it is totally screwed.
Besides, it would be interesting and fun to see Villaraigosa have a cow but not at the ! :-)
Okay, point well taken about bankruptcy. Although, I'd point out that the other folks you listed, who also had forays into bankruptcy court, went on to earn great sums afterwards ... unlike Ms. Nightingale who just had a new civil judgment for unpaid money entered against her (Jorge v. Nightingale).
ReplyDeleteSince you commonly do thorough research, I'll assume her status as a birther and 9/11 truther didn't tip the scales for you either.
Life is like a box of Meg Whitmans...
ReplyDeleteIf Chelene Nightingale is for ending the benefits for "anchor babies" and for the protecting the border for all of us legal citizens, I'm voting for her too.
ReplyDeleteAs for bankruptcy, she's young. She, too, may come back better than ever.
ReplyDeleteAs for her comments on Obama's citizenship and 9/11, those facts do indeed weigh against voting for her. But they don't stop me -- not anymore -- and here's why: I'm looking at the POLICIES each person advocates.
She is the only one who consistently, ardently and emphatically opposes illegal immigration. Brown doesn't oppose it, and Whitman is a shameless liar who can't be trusted to do any of the contradictory things she says.
So I'm putting policies ahead of everything else.
It's kind of like candidates' positions on abortion: their positions do not matter, because the only way to change Roe v. Wade is for the Supreme Court to overturn it, or for the people to pass a Constitutional amendment. So a candidate's position on that issue really makes no difference.
By contrast, when it comes to a policy an elected CAN affect -- like a governor's ability to veto a state "dream act," or a tax hike, or to line-item veto stupid budget items -- that's worth focusing on. Nightingale gets my votes on those grounds.
Is she a perfect candidate? No one ever is -- not even yours truly. Is she better than Whitman and Brown? In my opinion, based on the issues that matter to me, yes.
P.S. You want to talk judgments in civil suits, how about the suit filed against Whitman for, what, battery? Didn't she shove an aid? Whitman had the money to settle that suit rather than let a judgment be entered against her. That's nor moral superiority, it's just more cash.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll try to Google that lawsuit you mentioned. Thing is: perfection is a standard none of these candidates can meet. You have to pick your poison.
Well, I've looked at Jorge v. Nightingale. It appears to be nothing more than a $6,300 loan claim that was wiped out in bankruptcy. That's what happens in bankruptcy.
ReplyDeleteYou know, an awful lot of hard-working, well-educated people have had to declare bankruptcy in the past few years -- including friends and neighbors of mine. That's not a character flaw. That's the recession.
For the person or persons submitting disparaging comments about Nightingale, you're going to need to back up your comments with some proof if you expect to post them here. No "drive-by" attacks are allowed here.
ReplyDeleteI've already seen that someone tried to make a big deal out of Jorge v. Nightingale, and that turned out to be, in my opinion, much ado about nothing.
Update / correction: the $6,300 loan was omitted from the list of obligations on the bankruptcy papers filed on Nightingale's behalf, and therefore was NOT discharged in bankruptcy.
ReplyDeleteOne angry would-be commenter views this as a sinister sign of fraudulent intent on Nightingale's part. That theory, however, makes no sense. Here is why:
It would have been in Nightingale's and her husband's financial interest to INCLUDE the loan on the bankruptcy petition, because doing so would have DISCHARGED the debit, i.e., would have eliminated any obligation to repay the loan.
Did Nightingale, her husband and/or the bankruptcy lawyer screw up? I don't know. But this looks to me like a mistake since she and her husband would have benefitted financially by including, rather than excluding, the loan from their b-k filing.
Do accidents happen in legal paperwork? Go ask Mr. and Mrs. Frank McCourt.
My vote is for Chelene! I meet her...she is a real person. My concern is water to the Valley, prop 23, illegal immigration....which she shares my views. Everyone is hurting from this economy...even chelene.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you came around to supporting her, in my view the lesser of two evils mentality just leads to worse and worse choices. Besides the two choices we do have are similar I can hardly tell them apart.
ReplyDeleteI have known Chelene Nightingale for many years. I know for a fact that she fought tooth and nail to avoid bankruptcy. Chelene did not file bankruptcy because she was careless with her finances, but rather because she and her husband, like so many other Californians, fell victim to an economy that was (and continues to be) swirling 'round the drain. I'm really sick of people acting as if Chelene's personal financial nightmare precludes her from an understanding of fiscal responsibility.
ReplyDeleteShe, unlike either of the two major party candidates, is almost painfully honest. If Chelene makes a statement regarding her stance on any issue, you can guarantee that she will not change that stance dependent upon whose vote she is attempting to woo.
As far as her position on 9/11, Chelene is not a conspiracy theorist. She merely asks "Why can't we question what happened on 9/11?" I fail to see how this could possibly affect her ability to govern this state.
Chelene is tough on illegal immigration. She is pro-business, anti-AB32, a firm believer in states rights, and an advocate for education. She is what California needs.
Chelene and I don't see eye to eye on everything. I am more socially liberal than she is on many things, a woman's right to choose and gay marriage, for instance. But I have stood on the front lines with her battling illegal immigration. I know her well, and I know her heart. As far as I'm concerned, California NEEDS Chelene Nightingale.
Point(s) Of Accuracy: The person who posted above and mentioned her "birther" and "truther" status left out her concerns about "chemtrails" and "The Bilderberg Group."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plQeYj1lSiU&p=050D64462034F28F&playnext=1&index=104
I am voting for Chelene Nightingale. I like most of her positions on the issues. Read her Facebook page to get more information.
ReplyDeleteWhat's her stance on masturbation?
ReplyDeleteDoes she own a Ouija board?
What are her measurements?
These are important questions for voters.
Signed,
MSM
/sarcasm/
OK Walter,
ReplyDeleteHere's a point on Nightingale's consistency. From an event at palmdale she stated her agenda:
See #5
Chelene laid out her plans to fight against illegal immigration:
1. Secure the border.
2. Identify and de-fund all sanctuary cities.
3. Go after businesses who are hiring illegals
4. Take away all benefits for those her illegally, including welfare entitlements and driver's licenses.
5. Improve the process for those wanting to enter the country LEGALLY.
http://www.nightingaleforgovernor.com/volunteer
Sounds alot like many other politicians who say our immigration system is broken and we need to fix it so we can have more immigrants instead of illegals.
I think it sounds exactly right. That, plus enforce the law. This is supposed to be a reason to vote against her? Whom do you support for governor?
ReplyDeleteI don't support anyone for Governor. How can I given the current slate? Chelene goes on and on about voting for the lesser of two evils, but from my perspective, there are three evils if all we are talking about is Meg, Jerry, and Chelene. I should vote for or support any of them when I think they are all very bad for California? For me, it's Sophie's choice. By not choosing I at least still maintain my principles. So the rest of California elects a turd without my help or participation. Nuthin new for me. But I'll be damned if I'll willingly vote for a liar, an elitist, or a puppet.
ReplyDeleteAnd just how does fixing our supposedly broken immigration system by allowing more immigration solve the woes of LA or any city in California? Kicking out all the illegals and bringing in an equally or greater amount of legal immigrants still gives in to the immigration lobby. It's a form of blackmail in which we pay the ransom either way
Okay, so you don't support anyone. That's fine.
ReplyDeleteAs for your view on immigration, let me just say "wow." So you're against all immigration, including LEGAL immigration? So if there are a bunch of highly educated, financially stable, English-speaking, law-abiding people who want to move here and CREATE jobs, we should keep them OUT?!
Well, you're entitled to your "no candidates and no immigrants" view, but I find it unpersuasive. You sound grumpier than I am, and that's saying something!
Nice to hear there is a 3rd. alternative. Charlene is on John and Ken. kfi at 5:00 today, Tues. She should have some listeners.
ReplyDeleteI'll take the Linda Ronstadt of the late 60s, early 70s. She can include the Stone Poneys as her advisers for transportation issues.
ReplyDeleteI'm voting for Meg. Brown's policies have driven California businesses to other states, while Meg has created real jobs here. She does have mixed opinions on those things that aren't her focus, but what she's got her sights set on--that is, jobs, education and spending, she is right on. The 100 billion in unfunded pensions, which eat up 80% of the state taxes MUST be addressed. Jerry, who is bought and paid for by the unions, is crippled by the favors he owes to them and cannot take care of this problem.
ReplyDelete