PDA

View Full Version : Ask Meg email


Kestryll
10-13-2009, 1:44 PM
Meg Whitman is doing commercials where she says to email her and ask her about the issues. I heard this on the radio today and finally got around to sending an email.

I tried to keep it as neutral as possible to avoid loading the answers, not sure how good I did though.

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of Whitman nor do I support her.
I just want to see clear statements from the candidates giving their views and opinions on the 2nd.


Hello,

I've asked these questions of other candidates and politicians and nearly always they answer with vague comments and nothing of any real substance.
I am hoping you will be one of the few to give a direct and honest answers.

Where do you stand on gun control?
What is your opinion of the Heller decision?
Are we giving too much leeway to those who wish to posses handguns and/or assault rifles or are we not giving enough?
Do you see the Second Amendment as an individual right with the Government only able to restrict it in narrow and specific circumstances or as a collective right allowing the Government to place restrictions on it as needed?

Thank you for your time and response,

Paul


If I get a reply I'll post it.

berto
10-13-2009, 1:57 PM
I asked her similar questions. I asked about ebay policies while she was in charge. I asked what she would do as governor if presented AB962 and SB585.

Her campaign responded with a link to the Q&A portion of her website. They told me I would find the answers there. All I found was a question on 2A issues.

I wrote back asking for a link to an actual answer. I've yet to hear back. It's been close to two weeks.

No answer is worse than a canned general response that evades giving a real answer.

reidnez
10-13-2009, 2:01 PM
Good idea! RKBA is an issue that a few politicians base their careers on (destroying, that is) but that most politicians would just as soon sidestep. It is highly divisive and there are a LOT of single-issue RKBA voters.

We need to know where all candidates stand, get them to put out explicit and detailed policies on where they stand and hold them to it once they're elected.

Paratus et Vigilans
10-13-2009, 2:07 PM
Good job on the neutrality of the wording, Kes! I wonder what kind of response you will get . . .

technique
10-13-2009, 2:12 PM
If I get a reply I'll post it.

Please do...:)

dfletcher
10-13-2009, 2:16 PM
I listened to a press conference of her's a while back in which she stated the assault weapns ban "was probably right for California". Struck me as an odd way of phrasing things, sounded quite a bit like "Oh, those things are dangerous - we can't trust the children with things that are dangerous.

coolusername2007
10-13-2009, 2:49 PM
Here's my email I just sent to Meg...if I get a response, I'll let you all know.

Ms. Whitman,

As a long time registered republican voter who is no longer voting the party line, I would like to ask you these questions that are, in my opinion, incredibly important to the preservation of our system of government and way of life.

From your website, specifically your public safety coalition article you state “Public safety is government’s first responsibility and must be its highest priority. We cannot truly enjoy freedom or prosper without the assurance that our families will be safe in their homes and their places of work and play.’’ Ms. Whitman, Benjamin Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

My question's, based on your stated position are...

1. Will you govern CA as a democracy or a representative republic?
2. How do you intend to balance personal liberties against public safety? And, which of the two are more important to you?
3. Specifically, what will you do to protect the People's personal liberties, including the 2nd Amendment?

Respectfully,
(name)
(city)

Legasat
10-13-2009, 2:55 PM
I have emailed her several times.

I have posted very similar questions on her "Ask Meg" forum.

I have even called her campaign office.

I have received ZERO responses.

Without even getting to the 2A issues, that's enough for me NOT to vote for her.

Casual_Shooter
10-13-2009, 3:21 PM
I'd be amazed if, after advertising on the radio about this chance to email her, that it turns out to be anything more than a marketing plan.

If she's really good, she'll use a few emails in her speeches and future campaigning to show how she is connecting with the people:

"And this email I received from John in Los Angeles asks: ........"

F12517
10-13-2009, 4:46 PM
Kes, I already emailed and got a non-response answer from her...:mad:
Her response is posted first. My email I sent to her is the latter part.


Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:47:23 -0700 69 of 477
From: Ask Meg <askmeg@megwhitman.com>
Subject: RE: Ms. Whitman's position on the 2nd amendment
To: email removed


Hi!

Thank you so much for emailing us your question.

We will be reviewing all of them and carefully selecting some for the Ask Meg segment. In the meantime, you can learn a lot more about Meg, the campaign, and California at www.MegWhitman.com. Also, please join Meg on Facebook and Twitter for even more info. Thank you for helping us to build A New California!

Sincerely,

The Meg 2010 Media Team

________________________________________
From: email removed
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 10:32 AM
To: Ask Meg
Subject: Ms. Whitman's position on the 2nd amendment

Dear Ms. Whitman,

I am writing to you as a possible supporter for your campaign for governor. I like what I see regarding your positions and plans to turn our schools around and reduce the size of state government. As a small business owner and family man who does business with the state it is very frustrating to see the waste and inefficiencies that occur daily knowing that if these agencies were a private business they wouldn't last six months.

However, before I can support you I need to know what your position is regarding the 2nd amendment and my rights. Specifically, my gun rights. I have concerns about your beliefs. I have not seen you take a position on the 2nd amendment and gun rights. But I do know the position your former companies, Ebay and Paypal feel about gun rights. It is clear these two companies are decidedly anti-gun. By extension I have to conclude you are as well. Please show me that I am wrong in my conclusion.

The state of California has some of the most absurd gun laws, most of which do nothing to insure public safety. They do cost money though. Lots of money for various agencies and small businesses who have to deal with these laws. Many of these laws are driving businesses out of state and causing more job losses.

There are some legal cases that I feel you should be aware of. The first is the Heller ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme court. It states the 2nd amendment is an individual right. In the Nordyke case, the 9th circuit court ruled that the 2nd amendment is incorporated as it applies to the states. It is currently on hold pending additional actions by the U.S. supreme court. I suspect that the U.S. supreme court will rule sometime next year that the 2nd amendment is indeed incorporated as it applies to all states. Two additional lawsuits, Pena vs Cid and Sykes vs McGinness are currently working their way through the legal system. Both of these cases seek to undo laws that never should have existed.

When these legal cases all conclude it will likely result in the "safe gun roster" being ruled illegal, and our state laws on the issuance of CCW's ruled unconstitutional. This will require the state to rewrite these laws. The correct thing to do would be to drop the silly roster and pass a shall issue law for CCW's like almost every other state in the U.S. has done.

Many states have laws that require the state to issue a CCW to any law abiding citizen who passes a background check and takes the appropriate training. These states by and large, are safer and have lower crime rates than we do. Especially when you look at violent crime rates.

What I am looking for is a commitment from you that you will not support any laws that look to further impede my 2nd amendment rights. I want to support a candidate that recognizes the 2nd amendment exists, for good reason and will respect that right.

Are you that candidate?

radioman
10-13-2009, 4:50 PM
Meg's office. 20813 Stevens Creek Blvd suite 150 Cupertino, CA. 95014
her phone# 408 400 3887
call and ask 2a, you won't get answers, but she will know what we want. I called and was told to go to her web site. I said we have, and got no response. she wants to run, let's give her something to run from. gun owners!

ldivinag
10-13-2009, 4:57 PM
please...

i sent her email 2-3 weeks ago asking about her 2nd stance...

i get a canned responses asking to watch her website...

sigh...

spddrcr
10-13-2009, 5:32 PM
would it really matter if she actually emailed everyone of you back saying that she believes the laws in CA are absurd and that if elected she would make it her life work to ensure every home in CA had at least 1 EBR?

for me it would not as we all know these people all lie and will say anything to get into office. how many have to break every campaign promise before we wise up and stop voting for them? just because they say one thing doesnt mean they will keep their word, arnold is a prime example of this:mad:

berto
10-13-2009, 6:49 PM
would it really matter if she actually emailed everyone of you back saying that she believes the laws in CA are absurd and that if elected she would make it her life work to ensure every home in CA had at least 1 EBR?

for me it would not as we all know these people all lie and will say anything to get into office. how many have to break every campaign promise before we wise up and stop voting for them? just because they say one thing doesnt mean they will keep their word, arnold is a prime example of this:mad:

So what's your solution?

If you default to the position that they're all liars and they'll tell you what you want to hear and then do what's best for themselves why even participate in the process?

I'm not saying I completely disagree with the sentiment that all of them are in fact crooks of one sort or another but not questioning candidates does no good. How can I make an informed choice without asking questions?

unusedusername
10-13-2009, 6:59 PM
Well... I know one person who won't be voting for her.

A non-answer from a politician is a no-answer. They just never say no.

Sunwolf
10-13-2009, 8:09 PM
She doesn`t seem interested in hearing from the "little" people.

Kestryll
10-13-2009, 8:17 PM
This just came in:
Paul,

Thank you so much for emailing us your question. The following is Meg's statement on the 2nd Amendment:

“I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and our clear constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I believe current gun laws need to be enforced but we do not need any new restrictions on gun owners. Second Amendment rights must be rigorously protected.”

Thank you for helping us to build A New California!

Sincerely,

The Meg 2010 Media Team

As vanilla as I've ever seen.

WokMaster1
10-13-2009, 8:19 PM
That's her team trying to beat around the bush. Hell NO to her!!!!!

Sunwolf
10-13-2009, 8:20 PM
More information needed but I doubt that it is forthcoming.

loather
10-13-2009, 8:31 PM
This just came in:

Ed: Snip Meg's response

As vanilla as I've ever seen.



OK... Not so bad. Enforce what we have and don't encroach. Seems reasonable on its face. I'd like to see a more in-depth analysis of her second amendment stance, but so far this doesn't look bad. She doesn't come out and say she's in favor of confiscations, at any rate.

I'll still hedge my bets on Jerry Brown, for now. At least Jerry has a record of support, at this time.

RandyD
10-13-2009, 8:35 PM
Looking at this issue from the position of being a candidate, they know that each issue is a double edged sword, meaning that whatever stance they take they will loose some votes. Given this circumstance, it is foreseeable that a candidate would take a middle of the road stance and artfully craft a response to appeal to the questioner and avoid offending another political base. I believe what needs to be done is to gather a large base of California citizens and become an unavoidable group. There is another existing thread on this point so I won't belabor it here, but in my opinion that is the only way to force these candidates to take a position that will satisfy us.

striker3
10-13-2009, 8:36 PM
OK... Not so bad. Enforce what we have and don't encroach. Seems reasonable on its face. I'd like to see a more in-depth analysis of her second amendment stance, but so far this doesn't look bad. She doesn't come out and say she's in favor of confiscations, at any rate.

I'll still hedge my bets on Jerry Brown, for now. At least Jerry has a record of support, at this time.

Not so bad? She believes current gun laws need to be enforced. That means she believes in the assault weapons ban, the 50 BMG ban, the handgun roster, AB962...do I need to go on?

What she is saying is that she believes in gun control. Sounds bad enough to me.

SkatinJJ
10-13-2009, 8:37 PM
This just came in:


As vanilla as I've ever seen.

Vanilla? Just like her support for the conservative John (Casper Milktoast) McCain? You're giving her too much fortitude.

These people have NO allegiance to the constitution.

They only seek power and control. Every issue is only a bargaining chip for their personal glory image.

Spread the word that they are NOT to be trusted.

Semper FI!!!

JJ

dwtt
10-13-2009, 8:44 PM
please...

i sent her email 2-3 weeks ago asking about her 2nd stance...

i get a canned responses asking to watch her website...

sigh...

I sent her an email from her web site and never got a response. I'm pretty worthless to her.

CalNRA
10-13-2009, 8:46 PM
Not so bad? She believes current gun laws need to be enforced. That means she believes in the assault weapons ban, the 50 BMG ban, the handgun roster, AB962...do I need to go on?

What she is saying is that she believes in gun control. Sounds bad enough to me.

hold on a minute there. "we need to enforce laws already on the books and not any more laws" is a very common line ever for pro-gun politicians.

If she puts it in writing that she wants no new restrictions, that means a helluva lot than Tom "I support hunting" Campbell or Steve "say no to NRA" Poizner.

Not perfect, but better than the other 2 "Republican" front runners.

If she writes that in other replies it would be the most pro-2nd statement I have seen so far from the GOP field. Not good enough for us, for sure, but better than the other 2.

striker3
10-13-2009, 8:52 PM
hold on a minute there. "we need to enforce laws already on the books and not any more laws" is a very common line ever for pro-gun politicians.

If she puts it in writing that she wants no new restrictions, that means a helluva lot than Tom "I support hunting" Campbell or Steve "say no to NRA" Poizner.

Not perfect, but better than the other 2 "Republican" front runners.

So take it in context of her past stances and actions. She still favors the bad laws on the books. Just because she is a republican, does not mean she is the right candidate. I would rather a democrat who has shown support for our rights.

CalNRA
10-13-2009, 9:00 PM
So take it in context of her past stances and actions. She still favors the bad laws on the books. Just because she is a republican, does not mean she is the right candidate. I would rather a democrat who has shown support for our rights.

I didn't say her stances are good just relatively better.

Does Jerry Brown want to repeal SB23? does he want to rid of the roster? did he say that?

Witman has a looong way to go but let's put this into perspective here.

Paratus et Vigilans
10-13-2009, 9:20 PM
This just came in:


As vanilla as I've ever seen.

That response smacks of the issue having been focus-grouped in advance for a pre-fab, broad-appeal, on-demand response once she announced. Not what I would have liked to see from her.

Next!

Paratus et Vigilans
10-13-2009, 9:23 PM
Not so bad? She believes current gun laws need to be enforced. That means she believes in the assault weapons ban, the 50 BMG ban, the handgun roster, AB962...do I need to go on?

What she is saying is that she believes in gun control. Sounds bad enough to me.

+1, Justin. Status quo is okay by her.

striker3
10-13-2009, 9:25 PM
I was not trying to make this into a competition between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman, I was speaking in a general fashion meaning that I would support anyone, from any party, that actually did something in support of gun rights vice just wanting to keep the status quo. If you haven't noticed, the status quo tramples on our rights quite a bit.

Speaking specifically of Jerry Brown though, he has signed his opinion in a legal brief in support of our rights. That says a lot more than generalities written by staffers in emails.

Now look at how Meg Whitman oversaw the banning of firearms on ebay.

It seems as if the perspective that you are looking for is only on one side of the isle. I think that our perspective should be all encompassing, who cares what letter they put next to their name.

NeoWeird
10-13-2009, 10:01 PM
What you guys should do is send a follow up letter asking her why, if she feels everything is 'ok' the way it is, would we want or even need her elected. Ask her if she is perfectly content with the way things are being run, what possible benifiticial role could she play as governor other than a high dollar money sink to fill a chair.

Mstrty
10-13-2009, 10:09 PM
I dont believe you will get what you are asking for or even any response.

RP1911
10-13-2009, 10:48 PM
Notice how:

1) they evaded answering the questions and provided a catch all response.

2) the email starts with: Thank you for contacting us.. instead of "Thank you for contacting me"

3) the media team is the signatory instead of her.

spitkiss
10-13-2009, 11:18 PM
She had never voted until she was 46. It might be another 46 years before she decides to respond to anyone

coolusername2007
10-13-2009, 11:26 PM
This just came in:


As vanilla as I've ever seen.

Maybe a follow up to this is in order.

The Cable Guy
10-14-2009, 12:57 AM
Seems like her team is just replying to emails with what people want to hear. Let me give it a shot with an anti-gun biased email and see how they respond to that.

The Cable Guy
10-14-2009, 1:06 AM
Hello Meg,
I have been following your campaign closely and I am very surprised to see how much I agree with your policies! Anyways, I have a specific issue I would like to inquire about.
Long story short, I had a very, VERY, dear friend of mine who was shot and killed just two years ago. Since then I have been looking closely at California's gun control laws. To be honest, I do not see the current laws to be anywhere near effective given the statistics of gun related violence in our cities.

My question to you is, as governor, will you actively engage in reforming our poorly structured gun control laws? Will you allow additional constraints to obtaining guns and ammunition so that not just anyone will be able to buy a gun and allow another tragedy, similar to the one I have experienced, to happen? I am very happy to see that AB962 was signed in as law by our current governor. Will you allow similar legislation to pass to protect the lives of the innocent from senseless gun violence?

Thank you for your time! I look forward to a response from you.

Sincerely,
Caleb


And the waiting game begins.

Steve O
10-14-2009, 1:19 PM
bump this!

IGOTDIRT4U
10-14-2009, 3:27 PM
Kes, I already emailed and got a non-response answer from her...:mad:
Her response is posted first. My email I sent to her is the latter part.


Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:47:23 -0700 69 of 477
From: Ask Meg <askmeg@megwhitman.com>
Subject: RE: Ms. Whitman's position on the 2nd amendment
To: email removed


Hi!

Thank you so much for emailing us your question.

We will be reviewing all of them and carefully selecting some for the Ask Meg segment. In the meantime, you can learn a lot more about Meg, the campaign, and California at www.MegWhitman.com. Also, please join Meg on Facebook and Twitter for even more info. Thank you for helping us to build A New California!

Sincerely,

The Meg 2010 Media Team

________________________________________
From: email removed
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 10:32 AM
To: Ask Meg
Subject: Ms. Whitman's position on the 2nd amendment

Dear Ms. Whitman,

I am writing to you as a possible supporter for your campaign for governor. I like what I see regarding your positions and plans to turn our schools around and reduce the size of state government. As a small business owner and family man who does business with the state it is very frustrating to see the waste and inefficiencies that occur daily knowing that if these agencies were a private business they wouldn't last six months.

However, before I can support you I need to know what your position is regarding the 2nd amendment and my rights. Specifically, my gun rights. I have concerns about your beliefs. I have not seen you take a position on the 2nd amendment and gun rights. But I do know the position your former companies, Ebay and Paypal feel about gun rights. It is clear these two companies are decidedly anti-gun. By extension I have to conclude you are as well. Please show me that I am wrong in my conclusion.

The state of California has some of the most absurd gun laws, most of which do nothing to insure public safety. They do cost money though. Lots of money for various agencies and small businesses who have to deal with these laws. Many of these laws are driving businesses out of state and causing more job losses.

There are some legal cases that I feel you should be aware of. The first is the Heller ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme court. It states the 2nd amendment is an individual right. In the Nordyke case, the 9th circuit court ruled that the 2nd amendment is incorporated as it applies to the states. It is currently on hold pending additional actions by the U.S. supreme court. I suspect that the U.S. supreme court will rule sometime next year that the 2nd amendment is indeed incorporated as it applies to all states. Two additional lawsuits, Pena vs Cid and Sykes vs McGinness are currently working their way through the legal system. Both of these cases seek to undo laws that never should have existed.

When these legal cases all conclude it will likely result in the "safe gun roster" being ruled illegal, and our state laws on the issuance of CCW's ruled unconstitutional. This will require the state to rewrite these laws. The correct thing to do would be to drop the silly roster and pass a shall issue law for CCW's like almost every other state in the U.S. has done.

Many states have laws that require the state to issue a CCW to any law abiding citizen who passes a background check and takes the appropriate training. These states by and large, are safer and have lower crime rates than we do. Especially when you look at violent crime rates.

What I am looking for is a commitment from you that you will not support any laws that look to further impede my 2nd amendment rights. I want to support a candidate that recognizes the 2nd amendment exists, for good reason and will respect that right.

Are you that candidate?

WOW! Great letter!

Hunt
10-14-2009, 3:33 PM
meg will run Kalifornia like paypal customer service

Hunt
10-14-2009, 4:03 PM
I was not trying to make this into a competition between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman, I was speaking in a general fashion meaning that I would support anyone, from any party, that actually did something in support of gun rights vice just wanting to keep the status quo. If you haven't noticed, the status quo tramples on our rights quite a bit.

Speaking specifically of Jerry Brown though, he has signed his opinion in a legal brief in support of our rights. That says a lot more than generalities written by staffers in emails.

Now look at how Meg Whitman oversaw the banning of firearms on ebay.

It seems as if the perspective that you are looking for is only on one side of the isle. I think that our perspective should be all encompassing, who cares what letter they put next to their name.

meg is on video supporting Van Jones and other leftists extremist the vids are all over youtube. search van jones meg whitman love boat she is a far left socialist using the R name

ErikTheRed
10-14-2009, 4:33 PM
meg is a far left socialist using the R name

Based on my findings so far, I'm inclined to agree-- at least to the extent that she is about 172 degrees opposite conservative. Meg Whitman is NOT a Republican by traditional definition, but perhaps she is one by the modern definition. In any case, what I find far more disturbing than Whitman's political uncertainty is the number of typically dependable conservative officials who are endorsing her.