Democratic Party strategists launch ads targeting GOP's Meg Whitman

'Level the Playing Field' group seeks to block her from winning party's nomination

A group of California Democratic strategists have launched radio ads charging that Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is using her personal wealth to avoid traditional campaign scrutiny.

In a news conference, members of the Level the Playing Field 2010 group charged Whitman with avoiding both tough questions from reporters and releasing information like her tax returns.

Whitman, former CEO of eBay, has spent about $20 million of her own money on her campaign thus far, according to state filing records.

A Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday shows Whitman running even with attorney general and former governor Jerry Brown. Brown, a Democrat, is widely considered a candidate, although he has not formally entered the race. Whitman has a strong lead against her Republican primary rival, State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, according to the poll.

Level the Playing Field strategist Ace Smith, who has advised Brown on previous campaigns, said Whitman is "subverting the democratic process" and using her money "as a shield or a barrier between her and the voters."

Smith and fellow strategist Chris Lehane sprinkled this morning's news conference with liberal references to monarchies, saying Whitman is imperious and has "crowned herself governor." They painted a picture of Whitman flying around California in a private jet, limiting her appearances to groups of major donors and executives of large corporations.

Level the Playing Field plans to spend about $250,000 a month in radio ads in the coming months and have secured commitments for close to $1 million from various Democratic sources, according to Lehane.

The radio ads ask listeners to "help level the field against Meg's millions," and call for her to release her tax returns.

A disclaimer on the radio spots says the ad "was not authored by a candidate or a committee contributed to by a candidate."

Without a formal declaration from Brown, the Democratic Party has no major candidate officially running for governor. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom dropped out of the race in October. The deadline for candidates to formally enter the statewide race is March 12.

While Brown is not yet a candidate, Level the Playing Field group members today described him as committed to the needs of the middle class and said Whitman is on pace to outspend him 10 to 1.

Bay City News contributed to this report.

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.


Like this comment
Posted by robert lewis
a resident of another community
on Mar 1, 2010 at 6:57 am

"Democrat" is a noun. "Democratic" is an adjective.
Learn English before you write it.

Like this comment
Posted by Mark H. Moulton
a resident of another community
on Mar 1, 2010 at 7:55 am

Reporter Bing uses "Democratic" correctly in the text of the article, so someone else must have written the headline. Calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" is an old Republican slur meant to imply the Democratic Party is anything but. I always thought it was a little flat and mean-spirited. It did not occur to Democrats to return the slur by calling the Republican Party the "Republic Party". Just as well.

Like this comment
Posted by Bored with Name Calling
a resident of another community
on Mar 1, 2010 at 7:58 am

Since there is no such thing in the USA as a "Democrat Party", I'm confused as to why so many learned journalists choose to use this term in referring to this nation's Democratic party.

Is it possible to disagree with someone politically without this juvenile name calling? Maybe then we can actually start discussing issues that affect actual Americans.

Please grow up.

Like this comment
Posted by bob123
a resident of another community
on Mar 1, 2010 at 8:44 am

A little early for teh "Democratic' party members to start worrying about who will prevail on the "Republican" side of teh aisle isn't it? Maybe worried that the old tried and true never been anything but a politician( tired and nutball) Brown won't fly again?

God help us if we have another term of Gov Moonbeam--but then according to the Contra Costa Times today he has "reinvented" himself. So maybe the Dems should be looking for someone else to parade the same old tired more taxes, less services, more entitlement program theme of the last twent years including the current administration that has done none of the things Arnold originally promised.

Like this comment
Posted by mooseturd
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Mar 1, 2010 at 8:52 am

mooseturd is a registered user.

This is shaping up to be a doosy of an election. We get to choose between another waltz with Gov. Moonbeam and Meg, who didn't bother to register to vote until 2002. One candidate has never held a private sector job and the other never voted. Whoooooeee!

Like this comment
Posted by JR
a resident of Danbury Park
on Mar 1, 2010 at 9:24 am

Let's see, of the two which one would be able to actually relate to the majority of people in California...???

Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of another community
on Mar 1, 2010 at 9:43 am

If they're evenly polled with Brown not yet a candidate, my guess is when he does announce, he'll quickly become the front runner. Meg Whitman is no genius. She was just in the right place at the right time.

Like this comment
Posted by bob123
a resident of another community
on Mar 1, 2010 at 10:31 am

I fear that if these are the two best that can be offerred to the people of California we are doomed to yet more stagnation and impass in all ares of government with an ever climbing budget inbalance all of which we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. To think Mississippi has a better bond rating than California should be enough to sound the alarm bells but it will not happen. My advise to my children--start looking for another state to live in.

Like this comment
Posted by Ann
a resident of another community
on Mar 1, 2010 at 11:39 am

Meg thought to herself,
"I'm sooooo bored with motherhood and spending billions, having been born into wealth really can be boring...
I need some good old-fashioned screwing people, especially the poor and different people, if you know what I mean, wink...
I need more more power and position, ... I want to be QUEEN!" er, a, I mean Governor of California, and then PRESIDENT, the first WOMAN president!!!!
Voting? What's that...I'm rich, I'm given everything I want! (or I buy it!) So there!"

Like this comment
Posted by Qwerty
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 1, 2010 at 11:58 am

I read somewhere that whitman has "apologized" for her atroicious (ie non-existant) voting record from the last 5-6 years. However, I've not seen the actual text or video associated with this. Has anyone here seen it? I'm curious what her response was to the question of why she hasn't voted in a long time.

I'd like to see her answer the question about why she feels it necessarily to receive an outrageously high level of compensation while tons of other people get laid off, lose their homes, etc. etc.

Like this comment
Posted by Terry
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Mar 1, 2010 at 12:26 pm

Jerry Brown , P l e a s e

He is another error waiting to happen. The Democrats have made our State what it is today. Do you really want more of this Mess? Is Jerry Brown the best that the Democratic Party can do?

The Dems must be getting a bit concerned about Meg?

Has Jerry Brown ever had a private section job? Has he ever had to run a business or meet a payroll? Can Jerry Brown run a Lemonade Stand ?

Like this comment
Posted by LookingForBalance
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 1, 2010 at 1:34 pm

...One more leftist article by the Pleasanton Weekly, and it is not even about Pleasanton. There really is news in Pleasanton to report. It is not that difficult to find. Walk down Main Street and ask whomever you meet; or just read the Ind***dent newspaper.

Like this comment
Posted by Pleasanton Mom
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 1, 2010 at 1:42 pm

Looking for Balance,

We are living in unprecedented times - at least unprecedented in my life time. For the first time in my life, I fear for my country and my children's future as we see the almost daily assaults on our Constitution, our Free Market economy(our jobs, our healthcare system and our Freedom by our new Progressive (Marxist) Government.

Pleasanton is affected by what is happening in Washington. I am thankful the Pleasanton Weekly is a forum for all types of discussion.

I did not ask for the Marxist president. Yet here we are.

Like this comment
Posted by Don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes
a resident of another community
on Mar 1, 2010 at 2:19 pm

Obamas not a Marxist. I'm sure many are aware that I'm as conservative as it gets. We need to read between the lines. Obamas actually reforming the education system in a conservative fashion. The healthcare thing was a ruse to appease his base. He is a conservative. Believe me. Things are not so cut and dry as we might think. It's not about Democrat versus Republican. Anyway, try to look for what Obamas really accomplishing, as opposed to what he's pretending to try to accomplish.

But yes, the local democrats tend to be a bunch of Marxist traitors. We need Meg Whitman. We need her bad

Like this comment
Posted by Educated
a resident of Foothill High School
on Mar 1, 2010 at 6:22 pm

I wonder why "Level the Playing Field" didn't run a campaign against Obama when he broke his promise about accepting public funding for his campaign? Or when he turned off credit card verification so he could accept illegal contributions with plausible deniability?

Like this comment
Posted by dublinmike
a resident of Dublin
on Mar 1, 2010 at 10:49 pm

dublinmike is a registered user.

mooseturd, you do not know how the term "Gov. Moonbeam" was derived. Go look it up.

Terry, you do not know what he stands for. All you are concerned with is that he is a Democrat.

He was willing to accept a different viewpoint of governing as he got older. That is, he realized that shifting from a theoretical model of governing to a "nuts & bolts" management style was a way to get things done. He was willing to change.

Here is something to ponder. My bother, a Republican, working for the State of California in the seventies couldn't say enough bad things about Gov. Jerry Brown. When George Deukmejian was elected Governor in 1983, my brother was all beside himself. Even worked during his lunch hour to get the state back on the road... until... he discovered that his beloved Republicans were no different than those dirty Demos. Politics...

Like this comment
Posted by Pleasanton Mom
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 2, 2010 at 7:38 am

Don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes,

You made an incredibly confusing and incorrect statement. Obama is NOT a conservative.

The National Journal's annual ranked Obama the most partisan, most liberal member of the Democratic caucus:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

As a U.S. Senator, Obama has voted along Democratic Party lines 97 percent of the time, almost 10 percentage points higher than the average for Senate Democrats. So much for his "bipartisan" image.

He opposed funding for the War on Terror that was not tied to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

He opposed strengthening the ability of the federal government to monitor terrorist communications.

He voted in favor of providing habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

He supported the failed "comprehensive immigration reform" bills.

He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

He opposed a bill that would have reduced the federal estate tax.

He voted against the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

He opposed restrictions on partial birth abortion and requiring medical care for fetuses who are born alive during an abortion.

He opposed requiring school officials to install pornography-blocking software on public computers accessible to minors.

He opposed a $500 income tax credit for parents who send their children to private schools.

He supported restrictions on gun ownership, and opposed a bill that permitted the owner of an unregistered handgun to claim self-defense if he used the gun in his own home.

He consistently voted in favor of higher taxes.

For his efforts, Obama has received "100" ratings from Left-wing organizations such as Americans for Democratic Action, Planned Parenthood, the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Government Workers, Citizens for Tax Justice (i.e., for raising taxes on the "rich"), Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the National Education Association, and the National Organization for Women.

He has received "F" grades from the National Taxpayers Union, the National Rifle Association, and U.S. English, a 13 rating from Citizens Against Government Waste, 7 ratings from the Club for Growth, the American Conservative Union, and the Eagle Forum, and zero ratings from the Family Research Council, the National Right to Life Committee, and Americans for Tax Reform.

Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Mar 2, 2010 at 9:31 am

His administration has already taken control of major corporations in banking and the auto industry, replacing top executives with their own choices (puppets). In the case of GM and Chrysler, the majority owner of the company is now the labor union.
His administration has now recommended price controls be instituted in another major industry (health care).
Control, take over and nationalize the corporations, that's what Marxists do. I'm just sayin'.

Like this comment
Posted by Don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes
a resident of another community
on Mar 2, 2010 at 10:37 am

Ptown mom, just know we're not opponents. I'm an avid gun advocate, which is why I go under the moniker gunslinger most of the time. I'm an extreme pro-life advocate and especially despise partial birth abortion. I love my country, would fight again for it at a moments notice, if the war was a proper one. Ah, but there's the rub...

The misuse of war is the number one way the traitors, who have infected both parties, can destroy a nation. Look at how war destroyed Europe. Europe had control of 80% of the planet before their nationalism was misused by traitors in their leadership, causing them to fight amongst themselves, destroying themselves and their empires and countrys, until now they and indeed the entire western peoples are now second class citizens in their own countries, invaded by en masse by the very third worlders that were once their colonial subjects.

The Bush administration placed us in a false war. True conservatives like pat Buchanan and Ron Paul know that. There was no reason to oust saddam. He was keeping the lid on the bunch of lunatics in his country. It was a liberal agenda to free the Iraqi people. A conservative would say, "what the heck do I care if Iraq is oppressed? That ain't my problem. As long as they're not making problems for us.". And they weren't. The only one who feared Iraq was Israel, who coincidently provided all the false evidence that Iraq had WMD.

Toruting terrorists and locking them up without well established reason might seem all well and good, and I certainly supported it at first, but you need to understand how quickly that mantra can be turned on everybody. As many a conservative pundit has quoted, "first the government breaks their laws going after those everyone can agree is evil, but then they break their laws going after me." The constitution was created for a reason. There's a reason we have due process. The founding fathers knew that, sure it would be nice to not have due process when it comes to terrorists, which thy had back then, but once you get rid of due process for one person, you set a precedent to go after anyone without due process. Believe me, there are evil ones in our government who would happily throw gun advocates and rightwingers in general in guantanamo bay. That is actually the end game. You might think that's silly, but that's why it works, because many patriots don't see that trick until they themselves are locked up.

Bush and especially McCain fought hard for amnesty, far harder than Obama. Bush and McCain are neocons, a far cry from a conservative. They wanted a north American union, which basically wouldve made Mexico a 51rst state. And with that we wouldve been that much more overwhelmed by third worlders. So why want it? They were preparing for their end game- a war with the European union and Russia, which they wouldve provoked. Recall how anti-Europe Bush was. Recall how anti-Russia McCain was. Look to some of his speeches during the elections, where he talked about war with Russia if they ever did something so evil again as their I vasion of Georgia. Who the he'll were we to get upset at someone invading another country? Georgia had provoked Russia a thousand times more than Iraq provoked us. It was BS. McCain is an Cold Warrior who never let go of the past. He wanted to beat down the pinkos once and for all.

The wrong war is the true destruction of a great civilization. Hitler rose to power claiming he wished to save the white race and bring the Germans to glory. What does he do? He kills more white people than anyone. He kills thirty million Slavic people, many of them Nordic as can be. He get 8 million of his Germans killed, most being the selected nordics he chose as his warriors. He destroyed europe and all European power, the aftermath of WWII being the collapse of all European empires. The aftermath of Hitler was the temporary annihilation of the very people and culture he claimed to want to protect.

All other things are secondary to stopping the wrong war. So yes, Obama has done some things to appease his base, all for the primary goal of preventing the wrong war. But you must understand that there's a difference between actually doing something and pretending you're doing something. For instance, while he may claim to be anti-gun to appease the liberals, has he taken our guns away? Has he overturned the federal ban on partial birth abortion? Has he raised our taxes? No, no and no.

However, he is forcing the public education system to overhaul itself Ina conservtive manner. Do some research on that. And so what if he's taken over GM? It was always kept afloat by the government. It's long been a socialist endeavor in this sense.

Bush and McCain fought harder than anyone for the bailout of the banks and federal reserve. Is that not socialist? Too big to fail? Please. Meanwhile obama is putting the banks in their place, making them fight for whatever money they receive from the government and attaching restrictions that makes them quickly pay the money back. The monetary system should not be entirely private. It produces nothing. It does nothing but cause problems, especially the Federal Reserve, which is the den of evil ones who rule the world. But that's another discussion

No which leaders to trust. The evil ones are smarter than to wear their intentions on their sleeves, and to choose one party to infect so that everyone knows which is the evil party. Both parties are infected. Both parties have good people.

Lou Dobbs was a true conservative, which is why he was cancelled. The rulers ofthe world tried to supplant Beck for Dobbs. Why? Because Beck is a neocon. He's a corporatist, a warmonger, and many other nonconservative things. He touches on key issues like the Fed and illegal immigration only enough to bait true conservatives into thinking he's legit. But he's not. It's patently obvious that he's a corporatist, always bringing on the center for consumer freedom, which is a euphemism for corporate oligarchy. Remember, it's the corporate oligarchs who fight harder than anyone for illegal immigration, whih is why Bush and McCain were both for amnesty. And they all fight hard for a war with Iran, which serves no one but Israel. Iran is no threat to our country. They will never be. If you would like me to elaborate on that I will.

Like this comment
Posted by Don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes
a resident of another community
on Mar 2, 2010 at 10:44 am

Sorry for the typos. I wrote all that from an iPhone if you can believe it

Like this comment
Posted by Pleasanton Mom
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 2, 2010 at 10:48 am

Don't Fire,

I want to thank you for your energy and effort in providing the information above. I think I need to read it several more times to grasp it all! But thank you, it is appreciated. :-)

Like this comment
Posted by Janna
a resident of Dublin
on Mar 2, 2010 at 11:00 am

Partial birth abortion is a political/religious term. The medical term for it is late term abortion. I know you're not really interested in the correct terms, just framing it as disgustingly as you can. I'm sure all the mothers who have HAD to have this procedure because of deformities, diseases, etc. would not appreciate you trivializing something that is devastating to them and their families. This procedure is not done on women who just don't want to be mothers anymore. That doesn't happen.

What does happen is crazy people who call themselves pro-life, murder with remorse, doctors who are doing nothing illegal and carrying out a woman's medical wishes. Morality carried out by the barrel of a gun is not morality, and will never end any abortions. It will just make them more dangerous for the women who need them. Then the mother's and fetuses will die. What does that accomplish?

Like this comment
Posted by Don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes
a resident of another community
on Mar 2, 2010 at 3:16 pm

You rock Pleasanton Mom! Female conservatives are the future of the conservative movement. You're not hardheaded like many male conservatives can be. Being pro-Obama is a non-starter for many male conservatives, regardless of what I say. They have it stuck in their heads that he's a Marxist and that's all they want to hear. Now someone doesn't have to agree with me, but they should at least give it an ear, especially when they know I'm as conservative as it gets. Conservative women are going to save our great state and nation

Like this comment
Posted by Dont fire til you see the whites of their eyes
a resident of another community
on Mar 4, 2010 at 4:00 am

I want to say one final thing about Obama. Notice how there's no longer a public option and other key things the hyper libs wanted. His healthcare reform has become insurance reform, which is actually a good thing for the most part.

And I know this issue is extremely nuanced, but I know Dobbs got cancelled in the wake of the birther stuff. But, Dobbs was not a birther. And Obama wasn't the one trying to cancel him. That was very nuanced

Like this comment
Posted by Rae
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 4, 2010 at 3:35 pm

I love these lists the Tea Party Nation faithful like to perpetuate into their diatribes against President Obama. "Pleasanton Mom" has been busy lately spreading her brand of political humor all over this forum. I especially found her post above, copied from who knows where, a hoot. I couldn't resist just a few comments on some of the items from her supposed list of what I gather are decisions President Obama should be ashamed of.

“He opposed funding for the War on Terror that was not tied to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.”

Iraq . . . the war that was based on non-existent WMD in a country where al Quaida wasn’t – at least not until after we invaded. Me, I say thanks for forcing the Bush administration to finally set some goals for the war that should never have been. The real shame is that until 2009 the “War on Terror” that should have been waged in Afganistan, where al Quaida has been holed up for years, has been under-resourced and under-funded.

“He supported the failed "comprehensive immigration reform" bills.”

I’m guessing you’re referring to the “Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007” that was crafted in large part as a result of efforts by Senators Kennedy(D), McCain(R), Kyl(R), and Graham(R), as well as input from President George W. Bush(R) who strongly supported the bill. The 2007 bill was largely made up from three previously failed bills sponsored by Kennedy(D) and McCain(R) in 2005, one from Cornyn(R) and Kyl(R) also in 2005, and one from Specter (R) in 2006. I just love counting those conservative (R)s that agreed with “him”!

“He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.”

Thank goodness! I’ve never been able to figure out why those against same sex marriage feel so threatened, or are so adamant that Americans who happen to be gay shouldn’t have the same rights to marry as those who are not gay. I mean, really, what do you care? It's not like you're going to get invited to the wedding . . .

“He opposed a bill that would have reduced the federal estate tax.”

You mean the tax that came into play after $3 1/2 million had already been exempted from an individual’s estate? C'mon, really? I’m sure that very few, if any, who had an estate valued at more than $3 1/2 million died intestate or without a trust in place to protect their heirs.

“He voted against the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.”

Too bad there wasn’t a majority against the confirmation of those two. Maybe then we wouldn’t have decisions like the recent one in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” that allowed special interests unlimited purchasing power when buying a candidate for office. Come to think of it tho', that's one decision the Tea Party faithful probably likes to call "campaign finance reform".

“He opposed a $500 income tax credit for parents who send their children to private schools.”

You can afford to send your child to a private school, and you’re crying about a $500 tax credit??? Two words . . . Boo Hoo.

“He supported restrictions on gun ownership, and opposed a bill that permitted the owner of an unregistered handgun to claim self-defense if he used the gun in his own home.”

Since assault weapons have only one purpose – to kill people in large numbers – the only purpose one could have in owning such weapon would be to, well, kill people. As far as handguns go - you want to own a handgun, be proud of your NRA affiliation and register the darn thing.

“He consistently voted in favor of higher taxes.”

That one is such a broad statement that I’m sure it includes Obama's opposition to extending the Bush tax cut in 2006. That’s the one that resulted in a net loss to the Treasury of about $69 billion over 5 years, an average tax-cut of $20 for the middle class and an average tax cut of $42,000 for many of those with incomes over $1 million. Yeah, that was a shame all right!

Thanks for the laugh "Pleasanton Mom"!

Like this comment
Posted by Don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes
a resident of another community
on Mar 5, 2010 at 3:20 am

Dude, Rae, why are you dissing on Pleasanton Mom? She's open-minded to hearing other views about Obama, as she showed when I pointed out his conservative side. Such open-mindedness is little found amongst liberals. You tell them a conservative notion they don't want to hear and they close up and attack like adolescents.

But hey, that's why I like Obama. Up til now, overall, he's shown himself to be a conservative who's just playin' you libs. He hasn't taken my automatic weapon away. He hasn't given you libs any more rights to kill babies as president. Sure he may have done some nasty votes in Illinois to appease the libs, which just shows how sick in the head many on the left are. But, now that hes at the end game, head honcho in the American political structure, he's shown his true colors- and he's a conservative

The healthcare reform that will ultimately pass, as he knew, will actually be insurance reform, which is a good thing. He convinced the libs he wanted a leftist reform, but he ultimately accomplished a conservative one. Analyze it conservatives

Like this comment
Posted by Rae
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 5, 2010 at 11:59 am

"Don't fire",
What?? LOL . . .You think "Pleasanton Mom" wasn't kidding?? I don't know . . . have you read many of her posts? They’re over-the-top generalizations that have got to be written tongue-in-cheek.

Just to give you an example from some of her original posts (not her cut & paste extravaganzas from other authors) and, of course, to practice my own cut & paste skills:

Democrats are demonized as "radical Liberals/Marxists" who “hate our Constitution”, have “villified [sic] our Founding Fathers”, “lied about our founding principles” and are out to destroy “the Freedom is that is [our children’s] birthright.”

“Liberal policies are a lie, a fraud, and ALWAYS destructive failures.”

“Any vote for a Democrat now is an automatic vote for Obama's "Fundamental Transformation of America" (the destruction of America and our way of life).”

And it all boils down to: “The concepts of our Founding are in direct conflict with the Progressives' goal of destroying Capitalism and our high standard of living and replacing it with their tyrannical redistribution of wealth, massive centralized power, massive government (which means higher taxes!) with power over every aspect of our lives including the power to ration or deny healthcare. There is no way to reconcile these Opposites. The two ideologies cannot co-exist. This is why we are in a fight between Good and Evil.”

Wait . . . come to think of it, maybe “Pleasanton Mom” is on to something. Her humorous slant on Conservative Tea Party rhetoric as the antidote to evil is right out of the recently released (and then pulled back when discovered) RNC fundraising presentation. You’ve heard about it, right? It speaks to generating a “Motivation to Give” by making donors feel like “True Believers” with a “Patriotic Duty” and a “Front Line Mentality”. It shows that “direct marketing” leads donors towards “visceral giving” motivated through “fear” and “extreme negative feelings towards existing Administration”. That’s because these donors are “reactionary” and “issue/circumstantially oriented”. “Major donors” are “ego driven”, calculating their donations by how many “networking opportunities” they can get as they’re posted on a “Wall of Fame.”

LOL . . .‘Nuff said??

Me, I'm a 60+ left-leaning Democrat and proud of it. I'm also proud that I served in the Navy during Viet Nam. I consider myself an American patriot. I try not to be shy about contacting my elected representatives to share my opinions. I vote. I believe that there are extreme, moderate and centrist Democrats, as well as extreme, moderate and centrist Republicans and Independents.

I believe in the Constitution, but realize that the founders of the Constitution were white men (note the exclusion of women and persons of color). Just that . . . men . . . not Gods. They did the best they could at the time. But the Constitution is obviously a living document, hence the amendments. Amendments, by the way, that have been written to provide additional rights, not remove or limit them. It's up to all of us Americans, no matter what your race, ethnicity, religious or spiritual beliefs, political persuasion, or sexual identity, to determine where we've been, where we are and where we want to go as a country. The hard part is balancing extreme, moderate and centrist views to come up with a well-run government that works most of the time for each and every one of us - not just those of the conservative, Tea party persuasion who consider themselves the only "true" Americans, patriots with the only "right" view, the only "good" guys. We, America and Americans, are so much more than that narrow paradigm.

And with that, I'm off this particular soapbox. Have a great day!

Like this comment
Posted by Gary Schwaegerle
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 24, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Gary Schwaegerle is a registered user.

We must be Grateful to Meg; many are saying she will not Win. So let us say "Thank You very much for providing her portion $162 million dollar "Stimulus Package" contribution to "The Kalifornia Economy" For those that work in Political campaigning, Media, printing, air time, photographers, News People, Fuel, tires, Restaurants, Motels & more. "THANK YOU! Meg Whitman for Giving Back to California where Dreams can Come True!" Sincerely, Gary Schwaegerle

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Be the first to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Couples: Mirror, Mirror on the . . . Fight?!
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,172 views

Talking sports and life with Tommy Dyer
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 924 views