Thread: CA: Whitman will use troops on Mexico border if feds don’t

Originally Posted by wayneman

a light should have gone on when i saw the "LATINOS FOR MEG" CO-ALITION on her site.

sorry

a comatose fellow patriot

Don't worry, we've all been there. We all thought Lou Dobbs was on our side and raised over $500,000 for him to run for President. Fortunately, we caught it in time ... and found out from his lap dog interview on one of the Latino stations just days before we were ready to announce, that he not only supports amnesty he can't imagine deporting an illegal alien.

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by wayneman

a light should have gone on when i saw the "LATINOS FOR MEG" CO-ALITION on her site.

sorry

a comatose fellow patriot

Don't worry, we've all been there. We all thought Lou Dobbs was on our side and raised over $500,000 for him to run for President. Fortunately, we caught it in time ... and found out from his lap dog interview on one of the Latino stations just days before we were ready to announce, that he not only supports amnesty he can't imagine deporting an illegal alien.

lou dobbs did that?...seriously?...i'm...i'm...ok. didn't his get shot at? was he afraid for his life?...is it such a stretch that saul's end justifies the means..etc. etc...would have "certain" peeps of a "certain" persuasion shut him up? i'm just askin..how could one's whatever, go 180 degrees just like that with no apparent causual factors? that just doesn't seem to compute. that's like Al Gore coming out saying that global warming has been a myth all along.

Meg Whitman's incoherent stand on AB 32

Chris Reed
Tuesday, March 23, 2010

When Meg Whitman came on my KOGO 600 AM radio show a few weeks back, she was conversant with and in agreement with the critique of AB 32 that I and lots of other people have offered for years.

This critique starts with the point that forcing a switch to cleaner-but-costlier energy to reduce the emissions that are believed to contribue to global warming may make sense as a broad national or global strategy, but that it is economic suicide for a single state to pursue such policies.

In 2006, when AB 32 passed, Arnold said it would inspire the rest of the nation and world to follow suit. It hasn't. No other state has AB 32-type laws; Congress is unlike to approve similar legislation anytime soon, according to Senate Democrats like Dick Durbin of Illinois; and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit shows the rest of the planet isn't inspired at all by California's example.

Who says a unilateral approach is crazy? President Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, for starters, not just corporate interests or climate change skeptics or sarcastic bloggers.

So seen against this backdrop, AB 32 is just fundamentally bad policy. It puts California at a massive economic disadvantage without the purported upside of prompting needed change elsewhere in the world.

So what is Whitman's approach? She doesn't want to kill this bad policy, as she said in her recent debate with Steve Poizner. She just wants to suspend it for year. Poizner is backing the Dan Logue-Tom McClintock ballot initiative to block AB 32's implementation until the record-high jobless rate comes down sharply.

The latter approach is infinitely more logical. A suspension wouldn't allay at all the fears of businesses considering expanding or relocating in California. They would know that after a year, the boogeyman would be back. Remember, the state's own estimate is that AB 32's version of cap-and-trade is going to raise the big utilities' basic per-kilowatt-hour price by 40 percent to 60 percent by 2010. It is a recipe for killing manufacturing jobs and discouraging companies in many, many other areas of industry in which energy costs are a big part of overall operational costs.

So yesterday, I asked Whitman's press secretary what her stand was on the AB 32 ballot measure. "She's still studying the initiative and hasn't yet taken a position," Sarah Pompei told me in an e-mail. But Pompei also initially wrote this to me:

Meg believes that a one-year moratorium is the better way to proceed, giving the Governor the flexibility to thoroughly review the impact on jobs and revise rules if there is an impact on California’s employers to hire.

Soon after this e-mail exchange, word came that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association was backing the AB 32-blocking ballot measure. The announcement from Jon Coupal is a critical boost in momentum for the measure, just like Coupal's recent announcement that the HJTA had endorsed Whitman was a big boost for her.

But will Whitman sandbag the Logue-McClintock measure just like she did the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility's pension reform measure by strongly discouraging campaign donors from giving to it?

No, not at all, Pompei told me. She also said it was untrue that Whitman had sandbagged pension reform.

Sorry, Sarah, sorry, Meg. I believe Marcia Fritz, head of the pension reform group. Here's what Fritz told me on KOGO on Feb. 25:

Honestly, the problem was the Meg supporters. They were pretty much told that if you support my initiative -- our pension reform initiative -- and get it on the ballot, in so many words, I'm not going to help you when I'm governor on the things you really want to get ...

The rest of the sentence was obscured by me saying "Wow."

I hope Meg doesn't do the same to the AB 32 initiative. I hope she figures out the incoherence of her position. On the one hand, she agrees with those who say AB 32 creates fundamental economic disadvantages for California that won't go away unless rival states and nation also increase their energy costs. On the other hand, she says, "Let's just put it on hold."

I hope Coupal, among others, stresses this incoherence to Meg.

Why did Whitman sandbag the pension reform ballot measure? Because she thinks the union opposition that Marcia Fritz's measure would have triggered would have made it more difficult for her to beat Jerry Brown.

Why might she sandbag or at least stay neutral on the ballot measure to suspend AB 32 indefinitely until the economy bounces back? Probably because she is triangulating between the Poizner/Logue/McClintock camp and the childlike dolts and green Kool-Aid drinkers in the Arnold/Democrats/media camp who love AB 32 and irrationally believe that it somehow benefits the overall economy to have much higher energy costs. She thinks "moderation" on AB 32 will make it easier for her to beat Jerry Brown.

Hey, Meg: It's NOT ALL ABOUT YOU! California needs to be saved from AB 32. Unemployment is 12.7 percent. Suspending AB 32 is not good enough.

And as for Meg worrying about beating Jerry Brown, I now think for the first time in a month that she should also worry about beating Poizner.

Poizner's tough talk on illegal immigration is proven catnip to GOP primary voters. And his far superior stand on AB 32 could and should sow doubts about Whitman among the GOP's business wing.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/a ... and-ab-32/

yup. i was looking for some truth an i found it in CA's FLASH REPORT. Ms. Meg is apparently sandbagging the Ca Pension Reform Initiative. look under "incoherent stand on AB 32 piece. vereee interesting.

that's not very nice.

www.flashreport.org

never submit

p.s. apparently she paid 249 dollars a minute for her lead in the polls.

JohnDoe2 i posted this before reading your entire post.

Amnesty Republican Meg Whitman, Running for California Gov ...
For the upcoming Gov. seat in California we are getting more of the same from the GOP. After all we have been thru as a ...
www.rushlimbaughforum.com/amnesty-repub ... t3501.html

i want my ten dollars back.

no on amnesty

p.s. she's gotta go.

Originally Posted by wayneman

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by wayneman

a light should have gone on when i saw the "LATINOS FOR MEG" CO-ALITION on her site.

sorry

a comatose fellow patriot

Don't worry, we've all been there. We all thought Lou Dobbs was on our side and raised over $500,000 for him to run for President. Fortunately, we caught it in time ... and found out from his lap dog interview on one of the Latino stations just days before we were ready to announce, that he not only supports amnesty he can't imagine deporting an illegal alien.

lou dobbs did that?...seriously?...i'm...i'm...ok. didn't his get shot at? was he afraid for his life?...is it such a stretch that saul's end justifies the means..etc. etc...would have "certain" peeps of a "certain" persuasion shut him up? i'm just askin..how could one's whatever, go 180 degrees just like that with no apparent causual factors? that just doesn't seem to compute. that's like Al Gore coming out saying that global warming has been a myth all along.

Yes, someone shot at his house but they think it was hunters. But yes, he proved himself a long standing supporter of Shamnesty, he claims out of one side of his mouth he's opposed to amnesty, but then asserts that he is opposed to deporting illegal aliens, wants to give them a permit to stay, and make it easier for more to come legally. We waited several days to withdraw our endorsement giving him the chance to clarify, so William set up an interview with Lou Dobbs and Lou make it crystal clear that he has always supported comprehensive immigration reform which we know is the amnesty bill. There are several long threads all about it. Search for Lou Dobbs on the site and all those threads will come up. We were so disappointed. It opened our eyes to the fact that we can't be diligent or vigilant enough with these people who are in office, running for office or considering running for office. It was a terrible blow to all of us.

Originally Posted by wayneman

i want my ten dollars back.

no on amnesty

p.s. she's gotta go.

Call and demand a refund and tell them why you want your money back. Everyone who gives to a candidate believing they stand one way only to find out later they stand another should be able to get their money back and should call and call until they get it back. If they refuse to return it, call the media.

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by wayneman

i want my ten dollars back.

no on amnesty

p.s. she's gotta go.

Call and demand a refund and tell them why you want your money back. Everyone who gives to a candidate believing they stand one way only to find out later they stand another should be able to get their money back and should call and call until they get it back. If they refuse to return it, call the media.

i'm there.

Good! Here's some good and very exciting news for you, to show that our country is waking up, people are getting tough, and they are uniting:

McDonnell signs Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act
ByJR Hoeft
Published: March 24, 2010

Gov. Bob McDonnell reminded everyone today who enacts law in the Commonwealth of Virginia when he ceremonially signed Virginia’s Health Care Freedom Act, setting up a challenge between the commonwealth and the Federal government.

Flanked by Sen. Steve Martin and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and also joined by Sen. Jill Vogel, Sen. Fred Quayle and Del. Bob Marshall, the governor signed the four pieces of legislation that preserve the choice of all Virginians from having to pay for health care they don’t need, want, or can’t afford.

“We all agree that we must expand access to quality health care and reduce costs for all Virginians. However, that should not be accomplished through an unprecedented federal mandate on individuals that we believe violates the U.S. Constitution,â€