Originally Posted by xbook
I would rather have a person occupy that office that has the best interests of the state in mind. And it was clear that Whitman wasn't the best choice. Plus her campaign was being run by the former governor Pete Wilson. Who did a TON to screw this state up.
I would rather have Jerry Brown, a tremendous attorney, with experience in politics, than some puppet being controlled by a former governor.
After an adult life of never voting, why is being a politician so attractive to her now?
I'm not from California, so my comments are that of an outsider.
I think its naive to say that Meg Whitman doesn't have the best interests of California in mind. For every political candidate there is a mix of ego and a desire to be the center of attention, but I think most also believe that they think they can do a better job than the next guy (or girl). As far as Pete Wilson, he didn't "run her campaign" he was one of the campaign chairman. There is an important distinction in that a campaign chairman is simply a figurehead that brings donors and fundraising contacts into the fold - and in the case of Pete Wilson - gave the Republican establishment a clear signal that Whitman is the real deal. After some of his comments on immigration earlier in the year, the campaign quickly took him out of the spotlight and minimized his role.
I think the problem is that when Jerry Brown was the Governor last time, he took a budget surplus and turned it into a deficit. He increased the strength of public sector unions which now have the state on the fiscal ropes. However, CA is so entrenched in special interests that I'm not sure any governor can dig them out. And its clear the people of California aren't ready for that sort of substantive change either.
On a side note about her voting record - I agree, that's pretty disturbing that she didn't vote until 2002. Actually, really disturbing. But - no one is perfect - especially not politicians!!