Wednesday, August 11, 2010

California Governor's Race Conundrum

My poll is closed and a plurality of reader's who voted said that we should vote Libertarian in the California Gubernatorial election this fall. Since the polls aren't permanent here are the results for posterity:

After Viewing Meg's Billboard, Who Do You Support for CA Gov?

3 votes. Jerry Brown, at least he's an honest liberal.
4 votes. It's still Meg, better than Gov Moonbeam.
6 votes. Have to go Libertarian, these two are hopeless.
0 votes. None of the above.
2 votes. Let's find a Tea Party write in.

I was one of the two votes for the Tea Party idea, and given the nature of readership, was surprised that this option was not more popular. Temple of Mut has already covered some of this ground, in Arsenic and Old Lace.

As a former registered Libertarian, I understand the appeal of that route, but I can't ever support that party again, given 30 years of lack of serious purpose. I really like the platform of the Libertarian candidate, Dale Ogden, but if you are seeking to vote for him as a protest to Meg Whitman's immigration waffling, you might be disappointed. Although he makes good points, but his opening statement isn't going to get your vote interpreted as a vote on immigration:

Immigration has become a hot issue, but it is not a simple issue. America is a land of immigrants,...

Meanwhile, Dan Walters has a great piece on the waffling of both Governor Moonbeam and Meg Whitman. Even though I touted Jerry Brown as an honest liberal, Walters points out some of his real inconsistencies.

But is Brown less likely to shift positions? Capitalizing on Whitman's shifts, Brown told Time magazine, "But if I say something, you know I mean it. You know who it's coming from. That much hasn't changed."

Those words came from a man who, as governor, adamantly opposed Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 property tax cut, as a "rip-off "... a legal morass and "... a long-term tax increase," but after it was approved by voters declared himself to be a "born-again tax cutter" and touted a state tax reduction.

Further, we have the unions going all out for the Democrats this year, especially the SEIU and especially for Brown, because Meg Whitman has been so bold in taking them on. No way will I endorse any candidate with that kind of union support.

So has Meg Whitman repented of her flip-floppery on immigration? It seems really hard to tell, and given her recent conversion to Republicanism and her willingness to try to fly under the radar by buying Spanish language ads. She is being attacked in ads by public employees unions. On the theory that the enemy of enemy is my friend, I ultimately come down on the side of voting for Meg Whitman, certainly without enthusiasm, and certainly will not urge others to do so, but on balance, she seems the only candidate willing to take on the state's employees unions.

Temple of Mut's solution is to make sure you pay attention to state assembly and state senate races. While I applaud her for thinking outside the box of this question; I will ultimately be faced with a blank ballot. It's either vote for Meg or leave the box blank, since no Tea Party candidate seems forthcoming.


  1. Voting 3rd party is better than leaving it blank.

    It's an affirmative indication of disgust rather than apathy or error.

    I'll probably go Ogden, the Libertarian, but Chelene Nightengale is popular too with some Tea Party types.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. W.C.
    I usually don't comment without some research, but I recall Chelene as being a little unhinged. Thanks for commenting.

  4. Frankly, I don't plan to make a final decision on this matter until Nov. 1st, after consuming much alcohol. One nice thing about the SLOBs is that we can chat amongst ourselves, which mirrors how a lot of fellow Californians are thinking. It will be good to share the experience with you all!

  5. Face it, in California, our style Republican will never get elected. Meg is the best you can hope for and still have a chance to win.