It is morally unacceptable and just plain wrong ...
... if my comment at the bottom of the article is the only one left by a Save Our State member.
http://www.sbsun.com/ci_15514760?source=rss |
Quote:
Glad I don't live there |
Meg Whitman is actively opposed to the Arizona law? That's it. Under no circumstances will I vote for her unless she supports the law. If she makes it, as far as I am concerned, she is another Ah-nold.
What is the stand of the Republican party in California on the law? Is there one? I think I might even go so far as to say that I would vote for her if she did support the law. I might even go so far as to say I would support Republicans if the Republican party says they support the law. I might even go so far as to say I'll vote for Chelene since she does support the law. 1070 has made things so much simpler. Either you are for it, or you are against it. It is a solid leverage point even though it doesn't amount to much. |
As I have mentioned before, Nightingale is the only gubernatorial candidate that has it right on illegal immigration. She is, unfortunately, herself.
To have watched this woman in her interactions and her juggling of facts in order to render truth irrelevant when it suits her is an education in political science in and of itself. Voting for her is a great thing as a protest...but we all know that she will not win. She knows that she will not win. The future of this nation is in the hands of men and women of reason and courage, few of which are in government. I have grave concerns that we have come to a period of such egregious corruption in government that only open defiance of it coupled with the will to engage in battle in order to preserve the freedoms of those whom the ruling thugocracy would intern will bring us back to Constitutional rule. Vote all you want.......it is all going to come down to a lead exchange somewhere soon.:mad::mad::mad: |
Quote:
|
I never trusted Meg Whitman. She has proved more than once that she is duplicitous and ready to bend whatever way the wind blows.
Which isn't all bad. Put enough pressure on her and she will cave in because she's not an idealogue. Meg Whitman is no more FOR amnesty than she is AGAINST it. I don't think she cares one way or the other. She'll do whatever is the more popular at that snapshot moment in time. She has no problem whatsoever pleading her case in spanish and talking smack about them in English later. Jerry Brown on the other hand IS an idealogue. That's his main problem. Whitman can SAY whatever she wants to about his performance as Governor. She can lie or tell the truth. I accurately remember what he was like as Governor. Brown's major detractor isn't Meg Whitman, it's the long ago deceased Rose Bird and those who remember his appointment, her decisions and her eventual being thrown out in disgrace. Jerry Brown as attorney general refused to argue for the state that employed him in the Prop 8 case. Whether someone is for or against prop 8 makes no difference. It was not up to him to decide whether or not to represent the state. That's his JOB. That's what he was hired to do. This makes him unqualified for the position he now holds. He absolutely does not deserve a promotion. Here is the difference. IF California voters passed an equivalent of AZ's 1070, Whitman would enforce it because she has no interest one way or other. Jerry Brown would take his own principled stand and refuse to enforce it. Neither would he defend the state against any attacks. Chelene Nightengale isn't even under consideration. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved