Thread: Whitman launches ads on Spanish-language TV stations

Whitman launches ads on Spanish-language TV stations

One of them highlights her opposition to Arizona's controversial immigration law, which she did not emphasize in her primary election campaign.

By Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times
June 18, 2010

Meg Whitman launched two ads on Spanish-language television stations Thursday, part of an effort to woo Latino voters turned off by the Republican gubernatorial nominee's tough talk about illegal immigration during the GOP primary.

One of the ads highlights Whitman's opposition to a controversial Arizona law that compels police to check the immigration status of those stopped on suspicion of a crime. It also says Whitman opposed Proposition 187, the 1994 California ballot measure that would have denied taxpayer-funded services to illegal immigrants. The other focuses on jobs and the economy.

When asked by reporters, Whitman has consistently expressed her opposition to Proposition 187 and to the Arizona law, which became an issue during the closing weeks of the primary.

But she did not broadcast those stances in tens of millions of dollars in ads in her primary battle against Steve Poizner, who made illegal immigration a central issue. Instead, Whitman's ads emphasized that she would be "tough as nails" on illegal immigrants, and condemned amnesty, sanctuary cities and some taxpayer benefits.

"Illegal immigrants are just that, illegal," she said in an ad that featured her campaign chairman, former Gov. Pete Wilson.

Wilson is viewed as a pariah by many in the Latino community because he was the most visible supporter of Proposition 187. In a recent Los Angeles Times- USC poll, only 16% of Latinos felt favorably toward him.

Strategists say Whitman, a billionaire who has put $91 million of her personal wealth into her campaign, must secure substantial support among Latinos if she hopes to prevail over Democrat Jerry Brown in November.

"Unless she gets over one-third of the Latino vote, I don't care how much she spends, she's not going to win," said Allan Hoffenblum, a former Republican consultant who publishes the California Target Book. "She was pushed further to the right on that issue than she wanted to go, but the one key thing she remained steadfast on, even though she whispered it during the primary, was that she opposed the Arizona law."

Whitman said she does not believe the focus on illegal immigration during the primary harmed her standing among Latino voters, who she said share the same concerns as all Californians.

"As I have been on the campaign trail, you know what Latinos want to talk about? They want to talk about jobs and they want to talk about education," Whitman said the morning after her primary win.

The new Whitman ads, which are scheduled to air during World Cup matches and beyond, hit those issues. But Democrats have vowed to remind voters about Whitman's prior words.

Before the primary was over, the California Nurses Assn. was running a version of the Wilson ad on Spanish-language radio and Democratic allies say more anti-Whitman efforts are planned.

"There's no question," said Dan Newman, a spokesman for Level the Playing Field 2010, a union-backed group. "Over the next several months, one of the dynamics is going to be Meg Whitman vs. Meg Whitman — which version are we to believe?"

seema.mehta@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 5351.story

How did Poizner's oppo research miss this?

Chris Reed
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 a.m.30 11:34 a.m.

One of the first times I interviewed Steve Poizner last fall after he began running for governor, he boasted about how much helpful stuff his opposition research team had dug up on Meg Whitman. Soon afterwards came a series of embarrassing stories about Whitman's voting history, or non-voting history. So how did Poizner's well-funded staff miss the bombshell reported by The New York Times on Monday about Whitman having to pay a nearly $200,000 settlement to an eBay employee in 2007 after a physical encounter in a restroom?

The story broke six days after the primary election in which Whitman routed Poizner.

Some of y'all may be surprised by my assumption the N.Y. Times' story didn't depend on journalistic enterprise. Maybe it did, but I have my doubts.

Consider this: I was talking about Poizner's likely anger over the failure of his oppo research team with think-tanker, author and journo Joe Mathews on my KOG0 600 AM radio show the other night. Joe said a colleague who worked for the Phil Angelides campaign in 2006 when he ran for governor against Arnold shared this nugget about oppo research: During the entire Angelides-Schwarzenegger general election campaign, only one -- one! -- negative story total about either candidate emerged that was the result of journalistic digging. Everything else was spoon-fed to the media by campaign operatives.

My cynicism has other foundations, too. I once was part of an off-the-record group interview with one of the most famous and controversial U.S. public officials of our time. He said that when he looked at scoops on the front page of the New York Times or Washington Post, he saw them as reflecting the power struggles between conflicting interests -- the State Department vs. the CIA; the Secretary of Defense vs. the military chiefs of staff; etc. -- not heroic journalists turning up secrets and foiling cover-ups.

Given that we later learned that many of the Watergate bombshells reported by Woodward and Bernstein -- the icons of investigative journalism -- were spoon-fed to them by a top FBI official Mark Felt (a.k.a., Deep Throat) who saw the Nixon White House as bullying the FBI, you have to wonder how many scoops are developed and dug up by journos vs. how many are delivered on a platter to journos by scheming government officials or political operatives.

As for Poizner, his operatives somehow missed some very choice dirt. He should ask for a refund.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/a ... arch-miss/

Why can't the republican party give California some better choices for candidates?