PDA

View Full Version : Meg Whitman Q&A at my office - Updated: Took place 8/03/10


Stonewalker
08-02-2010, 10:10 AM
Tomorrow Meg Whitman and company will be at my office in Folsom doing a press/Q&A thing. I'm thinking I would like to ask her a question about RKBA. I would like to formulate a question that will be difficult for her to answer without angering people on either side of the vote. Not because I want to destroy her but because her position SHOULD anger people on both sides of the vote. Here are my ideas.

I could incorporate something about Saldana's AB 1934/open carry for all.
Cons:
-It would be too easy for her to say she opposes the bill and then she sounds like a 2A advocate.
Pros:
-It may give insight into her elitist position (she IS an elitist)

Something about AB 1810 - long gun registration
Cons:
-It would be too easy for her to say she opposes the bill and then she sounds like a 2A advocate.
Pros:
-This could help out her position on big government vs. personal responsibility.

I could ask her about her 'no firearms' policy on Ebay.

I plan on keeping my tone as neutral as possible. I don't want her to know if I support her, 2A, Saldana or anything. These are just a couple ideas. Are there any bad 2A bills in CA that have been introduced by a Republican? Can anyone come up with her stance on bills in the past? I'm hoping to get a discussion going so we can formulate a great question together.

Thanks!

Update
**********
It turned out to be more conversational than what I had thought, I made my question fit the context. Here it is:

"You have a clear plan for California's economy and we need that, I think anyone would be a fool to disagree with that. But how do you feel about constitutional issues; the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments. Specifically how do you feel about the recent Supreme Court decision that struck down the hand gun ban in Chicago. Now that the 2nd amendment applies to California how will you use your office to influence constitutional challenges of current gun control legislation."

A bit of a mouthful I guess but she just dodged the question altogether. She said that she will 'deal with those issues' if they come up but she is focused on jobs and the economy. Wha-Wha.

There were several news crews and cameras at the event, I will try to find a link to a video of the event soon. I also have an audio file of my question and her answer but it's in Mpeg-4 format and I can't get it to play for some reason =\ It doesn't really matter though, she dodged the question, she doesn't care about CA gun control legislation. She's going for votes, and she doesn't see Libertarian/Gun owners as a big enough target, we all already know this.

wash
08-02-2010, 10:25 AM
You could ask her if Ebay is going to change their firearm policy since SCOTUS declared the right to keep and bear arms fundamental to our system of ordered liberty and if not, why not?

jyda
08-02-2010, 10:27 AM
Is this open to the public, would like to stop on by since it's in my backyard.

jamesonamac
08-02-2010, 10:36 AM
Good luck getting to actually ask a question (verbally). I bet all her questions are going to be hand picked. You will probably get to "write" your question, and all the written questions will be sorted by her handlers. They'll pick the ones they like and let those people ask, and probably conveniently run out of time before the other, harder ones can be asked.

Uriah02
08-02-2010, 10:39 AM
With those question's she's covered as her campaign site claims she oppose all new gun laws. I believe she is out of Ebay business as well.

bballwizard05
08-02-2010, 10:40 AM
Good luck getting to actually ask a question (verbally). I bet all her questions are going to be hand picked. You will probably get to "write" your question, and all the written questions will be sorted by her handlers. They'll pick the ones they like and let those people ask, and probably conveniently run out of time before the other, harder ones can be asked.



This is what I would be afraid of, doesn't mean we still shouldn't come up with a good one and try. But this sounds exactly like what will happen! :(

sideshowhr
08-02-2010, 10:41 AM
^does happen and WILL happen. nothing new here.

Sutcliffe
08-02-2010, 10:45 AM
Good luck getting to actually ask a question (verbally). I bet all her questions are going to be hand picked. You will probably get to "write" your question, and all the written questions will be sorted by her handlers. They'll pick the ones they like and let those people ask, and probably conveniently run out of time before the other, harder ones can be asked.


My esteemed Representative Mike Honda had a town hall meeting that I attended. ALl questions were written down on 3X5 cards before he even took the podium. He didn't have to answer any question he wasn't prepared for(and didn't).
I'm of the opinion that all politicians are cowards.

Stonewalker
08-02-2010, 10:52 AM
Good luck getting to actually ask a question (verbally). I bet all her questions are going to be hand picked. You will probably get to "write" your question, and all the written questions will be sorted by her handlers. They'll pick the ones they like and let those people ask, and probably conveniently run out of time before the other, harder ones can be asked.

There will only be about 40 people here, mostly people in my office. She is going to give a 10 minute speech and then do a 20 minute Q/A session. I don't think we have to give our questions to her handlers. If we do, then I'll give a phony one and ask my real question if they actually DO verbal Q/A.

Is this open to the public, would like to stop on by since it's in my backyard.

It's a closed event. Press will be here and then it's only people from my office and a few family members. I haven't heard of a press Q/A being done like this before, seems kind of strange. She is coming here because we are a VC-funded green tech start-up. I'm sure she just wants to build up her image and fawn over these great new jobs (even though we are 4 years old).

Stonewalker
08-02-2010, 10:54 AM
My esteemed Representative Mike Honda had a town hall meeting that I attended. ALl questions were written down on 3X5 cards before he even took the podium. He didn't have to answer any question he wasn't prepared for(and didn't).
I'm of the opinion that all politicians are cowards.

That's not real democracy. The brits are better at democracy than we are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_Time

But lets stay on topic, I'm hopeful that I will get to ask a question.

Munk
08-02-2010, 11:04 AM
Maybe you should ask about less restrictive CCW since self defense has been affirmed as a fundamental right, and the police can't stop harassing people who openly display their unloaded firearms. Allowing more CCW would keep non-gunowners from seeing guns around and freaking out about it, while allowing people the ability to defend themselves in an extreme situation.

ASI870
08-02-2010, 11:06 AM
I know that Meg is not the answer to our 2A issues. However, if she states she is pro 2A and is only partly honest I will take that over Moon beam Brown any day of the week. I would rather we try and educate Meg than to alienate her. Jerry Brown would take all of our 2A rights if he could!

Stonewalker
08-02-2010, 11:15 AM
I know that Meg is not the answer to our 2A issues. However, if she states she is pro 2A and is only partly honest I will take that over Moon beam Brown any day of the week. I would rather we try and educate Meg than to alienate her. Jerry Brown would take all of our 2A rights if he could!

ASI870, I would encourage you to check out previous posts here on Whitman v. Brown when it comes to 2A. Brown is the clear winner.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=291450&highlight=jerry+brown
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=281095&highlight=jerry+brown

JB-Norcal
08-02-2010, 11:36 AM
Well off the top of my head, if you want to represent yourself as an uniformed voter, to which she IS the cure - then purposely flip RKBA to RBKA or "right to have a gun" and refer to 1834/1810 "those two new gun laws" when you phrase any question. As to what to actually ask, I'm not sure, I'm no politician, I can only say what I mean.;)
Don't forget, she's a tough nut, I would be surprised if she didn't have some staff trolling around here too.

bogeyshooter
08-02-2010, 11:49 AM
Ask her how it felt to vote for the first time ;)

dfletcher
08-02-2010, 11:52 AM
I don't know if this will work, but it did for me a few years ago.

I attended a forum at The Palace in SF in about 2002 (I guess) & the three SF DA candidates (Harris, Hallinan & Fazio) were there. I asked candidate Harris what she would do about "the gun problem in SF" and got the usual "make it tougher to buy a gun, guns are bad" response. I said "that's fine but the "problem" I'm talking about is there are no gun stores in SF and I have to drive to San Bruno to buy one ...."

Considering that whatever question you ask Whitman, no matter how you phrase it she'll get the last word and be able to finesse the answer. Maybe appearing to open the door a bit that you'd like to see more laws or think the current ones are OK, she'll step through.

fred40
08-02-2010, 12:08 PM
Ask her why is she spending so much of her own money on trying to win the election. There has to be something in return besides "power".

OleCuss
08-02-2010, 12:36 PM
.
.
.
I asked candidate Harris what she would do about "the gun problem in SF" and got the usual "make it tougher to buy a gun, guns are bad" response. I said "that's fine but the "problem" I'm talking about is there are no gun stores in SF and I have to drive to San Bruno to buy one ...."
.
.
.

Made me laugh out loud. Made others around me wonder about my sanity (maybe not for the first time).

stag1500
08-02-2010, 12:52 PM
You could ask her if Ebay is going to change their firearm policy since SCOTUS declared the right to keep and bear arms fundamental to our system of ordered liberty and if not, why not?

Well now that we have gunbroker and gunpal, what's the point? She's not going to admit to a mistake and change her views just becuase of a Supreme Court decision.

Esquire
08-02-2010, 12:54 PM
How about: Would she have signed AB962?

thrillhouse700
08-02-2010, 1:26 PM
Just stare at her for 20 seconds then start laughing like a psychopath. Like the evil professor kinda laugh, then sit down and say nothing with a straight face.

ZenMasta
08-02-2010, 1:34 PM
Yeah she's not with ebay anymore so she couldn't answer that question anyway.

Wherryj
08-02-2010, 3:39 PM
My esteemed Representative Mike Honda had a town hall meeting that I attended. ALl questions were written down on 3X5 cards before he even took the podium. He didn't have to answer any question he wasn't prepared for(and didn't).
I'm of the opinion that all politicians are cowards.

You give them far too much credit. They aren't cowards, they are working carefully to weave a campaign of disinformation. They want to appeal to both sides while serving neither (only themselves).

Actually taking a stand might cost a vote. Answering real questions rather than carefully screened questions might actually force a candidate to take a stand.

-hanko
08-02-2010, 3:51 PM
Barkoff visited with Ms. Whitman in mid-June, and was summarily crucified.

Check http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=312407&highlight=whitman

Check six. ;)

-hanko

gbp
08-02-2010, 4:18 PM
i hope it goes better for you than the people here treated barkoff
good luck!!!!

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd230/gbp98/popcorngazelle.gif

smallshot13
08-02-2010, 4:23 PM
Ask her about the roster of safe handguns; why is one pistol 'SAFE' and another of the same make and model with a different finish 'NOT SAFE'? Set up the question by stating you understand she supports the 2A, but the public is uncertain of her stance on many existing gun restrictions that seem illogical. You could ask her if she would support new gun laws changing existing gun restrictions to less restrictions, based on simple logic and reason. One of those laws could include AB 962.

gbp
08-02-2010, 4:38 PM
Ask her about the roster of safe handguns; why is one pistol 'SAFE' and another of the same make and model with a different finish 'NOT SAFE'? Set up the question by stating you understand she supports the 2A, but the public is uncertain of her stance on many existing gun restrictions that seem illogical. You could ask her if she would support new gun laws changing existing gun restrictions to less restrictions, based on simple logic and reason. One of those laws could include AB 962.

you are delusional in thinking that she could even comprehend the question let alone answerer
try again

Stonewalker
08-02-2010, 4:42 PM
you are delusional in thinking that she could even comprehend the question let alone answerer
try again

You are correct, but that is the kind of thing I am after. If she truly cannot answer a question like that then she has NO BUSINESS governing California.

-hanko
08-02-2010, 4:46 PM
You are correct, but that is the kind of thing I am after. If she truly cannot answer a question like that then she has NO BUSINESS governing California.
NO different than any other CA governor in recent history, not to mention US senators, the speaker and most members of the house, etc.;)

-hanko

Stonewalker
08-02-2010, 4:47 PM
I don't know if this will work, but it did for me a few years ago.

I attended a forum at The Palace in SF in about 2002 (I guess) & the three SF DA candidates (Harris, Hallinan & Fazio) were there. I asked candidate Harris what she would do about "the gun problem in SF" and got the usual "make it tougher to buy a gun, guns are bad" response. I said "that's fine but the "problem" I'm talking about is there are no gun stores in SF and I have to drive to San Bruno to buy one ...."

Considering that whatever question you ask Whitman, no matter how you phrase it she'll get the last word and be able to finesse the answer. Maybe appearing to open the door a bit that you'd like to see more laws or think the current ones are OK, she'll step through.

Thanks dfletcher, that is the kind of situation I want to create. If she knows about these issues and has a good answer, a good RKBA/2A answer, then by all means let her answer and damnit, she just might get my vote. I don't expect that to happen though. I expect her to have some nice/reasonable sound-byte perpared. If she answers with the sound-byte then it proves she either:
-doesn't care = BAD for CA
-doesn't know = BAD for CA
-is more anti than we thought = BAD for CA

This is what I hope to derive from tomorrow's conference.

gbp
08-02-2010, 4:52 PM
all i can say is " Ask the Hard Questions ", Let the Chips fall where they may, and be dammed with anyone who tells you different or Tris to dis-way you form the conversation.

Best of luck, keep us posted

smallshot13
08-02-2010, 5:08 PM
[QUOTE=gbp;4716219]all i can say is " Ask the Hard Questions ", Let the Chips fall where they may, and be dammed with anyone who tells you different or Tris to dis-way you form the conversation./QUOTE]

Huh? ? You call me dilusional for suggesting a question that you say is too hard for her to even comprehend, then you say "Ask the Hard Questions". I'm not sure I follow that. No need to explain as other posters seem to have understood the intent of the sample question.

REH
08-02-2010, 5:52 PM
Question. Do you belive the current firearms laws, example the roster effective?

snobord99
08-02-2010, 7:40 PM
Can someone please explain this to me: why do people take anything she says as if they meant anything? I mean, just her "stance" on immigration pretty much shows us that she'll say anything just to get elected.

Legasat
08-02-2010, 7:55 PM
Think future, not past.

What is she going to do, not why did she do things in the past.

Like: What is her stance on CCW going forward?

TDS Guns
08-02-2010, 8:06 PM
Ask her if she would sign a pledge to no new gun laws that cal guns would develop for her. Also ask her to clarify her position regarding the interstate commerce clause as it relates to California creating all sorts of restrictions on what can be sold here.

snobord99
08-02-2010, 11:16 PM
Think future, not past.

What is she going to do, not why did she do things in the past.

Like: What is her stance on CCW going forward?

Well, that's my point though. If all she says is whatever will get her elected, how the hell do you know what she's actually going to do in the future? Not sure if you're familiar with the immigration issue I'm speaking of...

vrand
08-02-2010, 11:20 PM
You could ask her if Ebay is going to change their firearm policy since SCOTUS declared the right to keep and bear arms fundamental to our system of ordered liberty and if not, why not?

+64000 :cool:

wildhawker
08-02-2010, 11:25 PM
Well, that's my point though. If all she says is whatever will get her elected, how the hell do you know what she's actually going to do in the future? Not sure if you're familiar with the immigration issue I'm speaking of...

Thank you for injecting some reason into the discussion.

Does anyone here really think that a) she would be willing to offer Jerry 5 points on a silver platter and b) that anything stated at a campaign function is her intended policy?

CP562
08-03-2010, 12:31 AM
Thanks dfletcher, that is the kind of situation I want to create. If she knows about these issues and has a good answer, a good RKBA/2A answer, then by all means let her answer and damnit, she just might get my vote. I don't expect that to happen though. I expect her to have some nice/reasonable sound-byte perpared. If she answers with the sound-byte then it proves she either:
-doesn't care = BAD for CA
-doesn't know = BAD for CA
-is more anti than we thought = BAD for CA

This is what I hope to derive from tomorrow's conference.

I also thought this dfletcher's was the best response in the thread thus far. I really hope you go with the question as he (or she) presented it.

:popcorn:

cmaynes
08-03-2010, 1:45 AM
I know that Meg is not the answer to our 2A issues. However, if she states she is pro 2A and is only partly honest I will take that over Moon beam Brown any day of the week. I would rather we try and educate Meg than to alienate her. Jerry Brown would take all of our 2A rights if he could!

Check out Whitman on AZSB1070..... she is a liar and the question that needs to asked is why is she willing to spend over a 100 million dollars on a job that pays $212k a year. Seriously.

WWDHD?
08-03-2010, 2:04 AM
What a great opportunity you have before you.
I think it would be best to keep the question a bit general. Asking about specific cases that we are all following are probably not on her radar or that of the press & general public.
How about: Do you agree with the recent Supreme Court 2a decision striking down the Chicago gun ban and how will it affect the many gun restrictions in CA?
Hard to dance around this and the press and non-gun folk will understand it.

Good luck and tell us how it went.

jlh95811
08-03-2010, 2:16 AM
What a great opportunity you have before you.
I think it would be best to keep the question a bit general. Asking about specific cases that we are all following are probably not on her radar or that of the press & general public.
How about: Do you agree with the recent Supreme Court 2a decision striking down the Chicago gun ban and how will it affect the many gun restrictions in CA?
Hard to dance around this and the press and non-gun folk will understand it.

Good luck and tell us how it went.

I agree. That is a solid question. I doubt she'd get out of dancing around it; Unless she's an incredible dancer. :43:

t_lashley
08-03-2010, 4:47 AM
[QUOTE=Stonewalker;4714319]That's not real democracy. The brits are better at democracy than we are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_Time

Well, thats probably a good thing as we are not a democracy. WE ARE A REPUBLIC!!!

Dr.Lou
08-03-2010, 6:11 AM
It's not the candidates you have to worry about as much as you do their advisors. They are the folks that truly influence the decision-making process.

Stonewalker
08-03-2010, 8:46 AM
What a great opportunity you have before you.
I think it would be best to keep the question a bit general. Asking about specific cases that we are all following are probably not on her radar or that of the press & general public.
How about: Do you agree with the recent Supreme Court 2a decision striking down the Chicago gun ban and how will it affect the many gun restrictions in CA?
Hard to dance around this and the press and non-gun folk will understand it.

Good luck and tell us how it went.

I think I'll be using some form of this question. It forces her to be on Jerry's side if she wants to look like she supports 2A. Maybe I can work that angle in too...

dfletcher
08-03-2010, 9:39 AM
"How about: Do you agree with the recent Supreme Court 2a decision striking down the Chicago gun ban and how will it affect the many gun restrictions in CA?"

I agree. That is a solid question. I doubt she'd get out of dancing around it; Unless she's an incredible dancer. :43:

How about this ....

As I've always stated, I support the 2nd Amendment and the right of people to use firearms in a responsible manner. While certainly no set of laws may be perfect, I believe current CA laws are reasonable and strike an appropriate balance of public safety and the rights of responsible ownership.

I'm sure she's taken more dancing lessons than me.

All kidding aside on the trick "gun problem" question, I think by asking a leading question (opening the door just a bit) you allow her to go on autopilot and give a "gun control" type answer, or pander and give a gun control answer, or be relatively honest and give a progun control answer or - to step back and say in some fashion "no, CA doesn't have a gun control problem we have a crime control problem - let's focus on the criminal and not the gun". Still, that's not a perfect "progun" answer and can still be weaseled out of later.

Stonewalker
08-03-2010, 2:04 PM
Shameless bump :)

I updated my first post. I asked my question.

a1c
08-03-2010, 2:06 PM
One of my many problems with her is that she'll give a different answer depending no which group of people she's addressing.

Brown has his problems, but at least he's consistent. And he clearly supports 2A rights. I am convinced Whitman is not going to make 2A rights her priority, and that if elected she will avoid the issue like a hot potato, preferring the status quo.

OleCuss
08-03-2010, 2:26 PM
Shameless bump :)

I updated my first post. I asked my question.

Thank you for pushing the issue.

I think her response meant more than that she didn't want to address the issue. It would have been quite good if she said that it is now clear that the 2A applies to the states and that as firearms-related legislation arises she will use the 2A as a guide as to whether to support or veto such legislation. That kind of answer would cost her almost nothing (especially since she is running against Brown) and might gain her some RKBA support.

So I think her choice to say that she is focusing on something else means she either isn't sufficiently nuanced or that she isn't even willing to follow the 2A.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I'm not sure that I am. I'd hate to think that she can't smoothly handle a question like the one you asked her except by effectively refusing to address it.

Stonewalker
08-03-2010, 2:32 PM
One of my many problems with her is that she'll give a different answer depending no which group of people she's addressing.

Brown has his problems, but at least he's consistent. And he clearly supports 2A rights. I am convinced Whitman is not going to make 2A rights her priority, and that if elected she will avoid the issue like a hot potato, preferring the status quo.

I agree... I have to say though, I'm glad I sat through her presentation and heard what she had to say. She does seem like she can get this state's economy in shape.

Consider this. If she doesn't support new gun legislation (read: vetoes) but doesn't do pro-2A work, does it matter? The courts will be the ones striking down unconstitutional laws anyways. The governor doesn't have much to do with that, other than her 3000+ appointments she gets to make. If she personally doesn't work against bad gun laws, but prevents new ones from passing and fixes the state's economy at the same time, is it worth it?

jordan970
08-03-2010, 2:33 PM
I mean what else is there to be expected from a lady that is spending every dollar she has to become governor.. shes going to slither her way up to the top no matter what it takes. She would be blowing groups of 2A rights supporters if it would get her the win. We are screwed with either of them, seems like the case with most politics lately.

GutPunch
08-03-2010, 2:36 PM
Nice... She actually came to your business? You don't happen to work for Intel do you? :P

DougJ
08-03-2010, 2:39 PM
A bit of a mouthful I guess but she just dodged the question altogether. She said that she will 'deal with those issues' if they come up but she is focused on jobs and the economy. Wha-Wha.


Follow-up. Ma'am, so what you're saying is that you are currently unprepared to deal with anything other than what you've mentioned in your talking points?

REH
08-03-2010, 3:04 PM
Sad indeed. The way politicians dodge questions

taperxz
08-03-2010, 3:53 PM
I think i would have asked this. Meg, do you think its right that the sheriff in each county has more authority than the governor of the state to decide who can and can't CCW and can choose their own reasons for denial that is not based on any case law and what he/ she says goes regardless of our second amendment rights? Yes or no answer.

taperxz
08-03-2010, 3:55 PM
If you let Meg know that she is not in charge she will get P's off!! She is the ultimate control freak!

a1c
08-03-2010, 4:00 PM
I agree... I have to say though, I'm glad I sat through her presentation and heard what she had to say. She does seem like she can get this state's economy in shape.

Consider this. If she doesn't support new gun legislation (read: vetoes) but doesn't do pro-2A work, does it matter? The courts will be the ones striking down unconstitutional laws anyways. The governor doesn't have much to do with that, other than her 3000+ appointments she gets to make. If she personally doesn't work against bad gun laws, but prevents new ones from passing and fixes the state's economy at the same time, is it worth it?

Because I don't think she's going to fix the state's economy.

First because fixing the state's economy is going to require some sacrifices. She would probably cut spending, but she would soon find herself in the same situation Arnold did: he arrived thinking cutting spending would be enough. He soon realized he also needed to increase income. That means taxes.

We can't burden businesses with too many additional taxes. And her pro-business stance (and the fact that she's getting bought by corporate interests left and right) means that she'll have to find the money somewhere. Where? Taxes. On income. On property. On a ****load of other things. But that's political suicide for someone like her. I don't like it, but I know that when you need to pay off debt, sometimes getting rid of your cable and cell phone bills is not enough. You need another source of income. It's not popular and no one likes taxes. I don't. But I don't see another way out.

The other reason - and that's a practical and ethical sticking point for me - is that I do not believe you run a state (or a country) like a business. Because a business' goal is to make a profit. That's not how you run a state. You have to fund schools, hospitals, roads, colleges, services, and all sorts of things that don't bring any income directly - they are a long-term investment in the state's workforce and economy. Call me liberal, but that's how I roll.

I expect Whitman to be Arnold 2.0, minus the socially liberal stance. A big mouth, but no reduction of the state deficit. And she'll blame it all on unions, Democrats and the Sierra Club. And forget about 2A rights, that's not in her priorities.

Rossi357
08-03-2010, 4:27 PM
I plan on keeping my tone as neutral as possible. I don't want her to know if I support her, 2A, Saldana or anything. These are just a couple ideas. Are there any bad 2A bills in CA that have been introduced by a Republican? Can anyone come up with her stance on bills in the past? I'm hoping to get a discussion going so we can formulate a great question together.

Thanks!

Update
**********
It turned out to be more conversational than what I had thought, I made my question fit the context. Here it is:

"You have a clear plan for California's economy and we need that, I think anyone would be a fool to disagree with that. But how do you feel about constitutional issues; the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments. Specifically how do you feel about the recent Supreme Court decision that struck down the hand gun ban in Chicago. Now that the 2nd amendment applies to California how will you use your office to influence constitutional challenges of current gun control legislation."

A bit of a mouthful I guess but she just dodged the question altogether. She said that she will 'deal with those issues' if they come up but she is focused on jobs and the economy. Wha-Wha.

I knew she would dance around the gun issue.
But, what was her magic plan for Calif's economy?
Create jobs? Exactly how?
Saying you want to create jobs is great, but tell us how.
Cut spending? How does a state that doesn't have enough income to pay its bills cut spending?

hasserl
08-03-2010, 4:31 PM
A bit of a mouthful I guess but she just dodged the question altogether. She said that she will 'deal with those issues' if they come up but she is focused on jobs and the economy. Wha-Wha.

So, we can expect you to be consistent and hold Jerry Brown with the same contempt if/when he shows the same dodging on 2A questions and CA gun laws? Or can we expect a comment something like "what do you expect him to commit political suicide? He's trying to get elected you know" Not accusing you of anything, just curious how you think you'll react.

hasserl
08-03-2010, 4:41 PM
Because I don't think she's going to fix the state's economy.

First because fixing the state's economy is going to require some sacrifices. She would probably cut spending, but she would soon find herself in the same situation Arnold did: he arrived thinking cutting spending would be enough. He soon realized he also needed to increase income. That means taxes.

We can't burden businesses with too many additional taxes. And her pro-business stance (and the fact that she's getting bought by corporate interests left and right) means that she'll have to find the money somewhere. Where? Taxes. On income. On property. On a ****load of other things. But that's political suicide for someone like her. I don't like it, but I know that when you need to pay off debt, sometimes getting rid of your cable and cell phone bills is not enough. You need another source of income. It's not popular and no one likes taxes. I don't. But I don't see another way out.

The other reason - and that's a practical and ethical sticking point for me - is that I do not believe you run a state (or a country) like a business. Because a business' goal is to make a profit. That's not how you run a state. You have to fund schools, hospitals, roads, colleges, services, and all sorts of things that don't bring any income directly - they are a long-term investment in the state's workforce and economy. Call me liberal, but that's how I roll.

I expect Whitman to be Arnold 2.0, minus the socially liberal stance. A big mouth, but no reduction of the state deficit. And she'll blame it all on unions, Democrats and the Sierra Club. And forget about 2A rights, that's not in her priorities.

This post goes way off 2A topic, and I got slammed for that. But, to respond to some of the points regarding taxes and state income. You get to a point where raising taxes does not increase income, I believe we are past that point. Raising taxes now would have a negative net result on tax revenue. I believe that a reduction in taxes could/would actually help increase tax revenue because it would encourage more business, more economic activity.

Regarding Schwarzenegger and spending cuts, I that spending actually increased dramatically under him. In fact had he merely keep the growth of spending in line with the rate of inflation we would have a several billion dollar budget surplus instead of the massive deficit. Spending cuts can and must do the job. What needs to be done is to investigate where the spending increases took place over the past 6 years, and that is where you start the cutting. Is it going to hurt some folks, hell yes it's going to hurt. That doesn't mean it doesn't have to be done. It hurts to pass kidney stones too, but when it has to be done, it has to be done.

Stonewalker
08-03-2010, 4:54 PM
I knew she would dance around the gun issue.
But, what was her magic plan for Calif's economy?
Create jobs? Exactly how?
Saying you want to create jobs is great, but tell us how.
Cut spending? How does a state that doesn't have enough income to pay its bills cut spending?

She plans on combating the unions. That is one way I see her cutting spending. State pensions are insane. Absolutely insane. She plans on doing some de-regulation to make CA a more attractive place to do business and she plans on building an Economic/Business Development team. CA doesn't have one of those right now.

This is all 10,000 foot view. I'm just trying to look at the positives.

So, we can expect you to be consistent and hold Jerry Brown with the same contempt if/when he shows the same dodging on 2A questions and CA gun laws? Or can we expect a comment something like "what do you expect him to commit political suicide? He's trying to get elected you know" Not accusing you of anything, just curious how you think you'll react.

Honestly I'm on the fence at this point. I haven't heard much from JB about anything really. I read his amicous brief in McDonald v Chicago and that's far more than Meg has done. He seems to be pro-bigger gov and is definitely pro-union, so that worries me. But he's had tons of experience as the DA and if he truly is as pro-2A he might kick some major anti *** with the now-applicable 2nd amendment in tow. I believe there will be two debates before the November election. I really hope some 2A issues come up so we can see what he says. No I won't give him leeway for refusing to answer a question.

Drivedabizness
08-03-2010, 6:46 PM
Nope :) - www.synapsense.com



Shoulda-coulda-woulda. I'm not much for public speaking.

You guys hiring?

hasserl
08-03-2010, 6:53 PM
Honestly I'm on the fence at this point. I haven't heard much from JB about anything really. I read his amicous brief in McDonald v Chicago and that's far more than Meg has done. He seems to be pro-bigger gov and is definitely pro-union, so that worries me. But he's had tons of experience as the DA and if he truly is as pro-2A he might kick some major anti *** with the now-applicable 2nd amendment in tow. I believe there will be two debates before the November election. I really hope some 2A issues come up so we can see what he says. No I won't give him leeway for refusing to answer a question.

Fair enough, thanks for the honesty.

Ding126
08-03-2010, 8:32 PM
November is going to be which Democrat do you want? I honestly feel that Megs dancing around 2A question speaks volumes. A true conservative would have an answer to the effect of " It's a constitutional right " God given right etc. because its already a belief..not something they have to think about or wonder what to say to satisfy the crowd.

I think the choice gets clearer everyday and the debates will bring additional clarity.

a1c
08-03-2010, 8:35 PM
November is going to be which Democrat do you want? I honestly feel that Megs dancing around 2A question speaks volumes. A true conservative would have an answer to the effect of " It's a constitutional right " God given right etc. because its already a belief..not something they have to think about or wonder what to say to satisfy the crowd.

I think the choice gets clearer everyday and the debates will bring additional clarity.

Plenty of conservatives have been doing just that about the 2A for decades in many states. It's not a conservative vs. liberals issue, it's whether or not you believe in the 2A.

KylaGWolf
08-03-2010, 9:40 PM
She plans on combating the unions. That is one way I see her cutting spending. State pensions are insane. Absolutely insane. She plans on doing some de-regulation to make CA a more attractive place to do business and she plans on building an Economic/Business Development team. CA doesn't have one of those right now.

This is all 10,000 foot view. I'm just trying to look at the positives.



Honestly I'm on the fence at this point. I haven't heard much from JB about anything really. I read his amicous brief in McDonald v Chicago and that's far more than Meg has done. He seems to be pro-bigger gov and is definitely pro-union, so that worries me. But he's had tons of experience as the DA and if he truly is as pro-2A he might kick some major anti *** with the now-applicable 2nd amendment in tow. I believe there will be two debates before the November election. I really hope some 2A issues come up so we can see what he says. No I won't give him leeway for refusing to answer a question.

She won't combat unions she will embrace them. Second she out and out lied on her stance on AB1070. Oh and she also is very rabid anti gun. Those reasons alone I could never ever vote for her.

socal2310
08-03-2010, 10:11 PM
She plans on combating the unions. That is one way I see her cutting spending. State pensions are insane. Absolutely insane. She plans on doing some de-regulation to make CA a more attractive place to do business and she plans on building an Economic/Business Development team. CA doesn't have one of those right now.

This is all 10,000 foot view. I'm just trying to look at the positives.



Honestly I'm on the fence at this point. I haven't heard much from JB about anything really. I read his amicous brief in McDonald v Chicago and that's far more than Meg has done. He seems to be pro-bigger gov and is definitely pro-union, so that worries me. But he's had tons of experience as the DA and if he truly is as pro-2A he might kick some major anti *** with the now-applicable 2nd amendment in tow. I believe there will be two debates before the November election. I really hope some 2A issues come up so we can see what he says. No I won't give him leeway for refusing to answer a question.

Whoever is governor next is screwed, period. The governor can attempt to cajole, browbeat or intimidate the legislature, but ultimately, he or she signs or vetoes bills that cross his/her desk, nothing more. Our heavily gerrymandered legislature and assembly are not going to be significantly different under the new governor. As far as "deregulation" is concerned, the cure may be worse than the disease. In Sacramento, "deregulation" means designing and implementing a business model that is untenable and beholden to the state. Remember rolling blackouts in connection with "deregulated" energy companies in California? Utilities were compelled to purchase power on the (notoriously variable) spot market instead of long term contracts. Out of state energy suppliers saw they could make a killing and did so. Remember, "price gouging" is the market's short term solution to the problem of scarce resources (rationing is not in the business owner's best interests, getting the greatest amount of profit from a profit who's future availability is in doubt is).

Ryan

NotEnoughGuns
08-03-2010, 10:37 PM
we could all just vote for a third party.

R or D do you really think it matters? Boy do they have us fooled. :(

Legasat
08-03-2010, 11:02 PM
I mean what else is there to be expected from a lady that is spending every dollar she has to become governor.. shes going to slither her way up to the top no matter what it takes. She would be blowing groups of 2A rights supporters if it would get her the win. We are screwed with either of them, seems like the case with most politics lately.

Spending every dollar she has? She is only spending $100M on this. That's not even 10% of what she is worth.

freonr22
08-03-2010, 11:32 PM
we could all just vote for a third party.

R or D do you really think it matters? Boy do they have us fooled. :(


the same people control both sides.

WWDHD?
08-04-2010, 1:55 AM
I think you asked a solid question. She is obviously sticking to the jobs and economy issue, and maybe rightfully so. Guns don't have much to do with that and as far as shes concerned we're just another special interest group. The best we can hope for is to keep the pressure on and force them to see that this IS important to a lot of people on many different levels.
Maybe the best we can hope for if she wins is that she'll not do any more harm.
the biggest problem with Brown is that then Gavin Newsom would only be a 77-year old heartbeat away from being the GOV.

gorblimey
08-04-2010, 2:27 AM
This post goes way off 2A topic, and I got slammed for that. But, to respond to some of the points regarding taxes and state income. You get to a point where raising taxes does not increase income, I believe we are past that point. Raising taxes now would have a negative net result on tax revenue. I believe that a reduction in taxes could/would actually help increase tax revenue because it would encourage more business, more economic activity.

Regarding Schwarzenegger and spending cuts, I that spending actually increased dramatically under him. In fact had he merely keep the growth of spending in line with the rate of inflation we would have a several billion dollar budget surplus instead of the massive deficit. Spending cuts can and must do the job. What needs to be done is to investigate where the spending increases took place over the past 6 years, and that is where you start the cutting. Is it going to hurt some folks, hell yes it's going to hurt. That doesn't mean it doesn't have to be done. It hurts to pass kidney stones too, but when it has to be done, it has to be done.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

thayne
08-04-2010, 11:20 AM
Sad indeed. The way politicians dodge questions

She's not even good at it

motorhead
08-04-2010, 11:56 AM
face it, we're doomed!

FirstFlight
08-04-2010, 3:21 PM
I think you asked a solid question. She is obviously sticking to the jobs and economy issue, and maybe rightfully so. Guns don't have much to do with that and as far as shes concerned we're just another special interest group. The best we can hope for is to keep the pressure on and force them to see that this IS important to a lot of people on many different levels.
Maybe the best we can hope for if she wins is that she'll not do any more harm.
the biggest problem with Brown is that then Gavin Newsom would only be a 77-year old heartbeat away from being the GOV.

A very good point!

Stonewalker
08-04-2010, 3:31 PM
I think you asked a solid question. She is obviously sticking to the jobs and economy issue, and maybe rightfully so. Guns don't have much to do with that and as far as shes concerned we're just another special interest group. The best we can hope for is to keep the pressure on and force them to see that this IS important to a lot of people on many different levels.
Maybe the best we can hope for if she wins is that she'll not do any more harm.
the biggest problem with Brown is that then Gavin Newsom would only be a 77-year old heartbeat away from being the GOV.

Thanks. Yea, JB may not be around much longer, and that is a terrifying thought!

navyinrwanda
08-04-2010, 4:10 PM
Can we clone NJ Gov. Chris Cristie (http://biggovernment.com/kolson/2010/08/02/can-we-clone-nj-gov-chris-christie/)?

Libertarian777
08-04-2010, 7:25 PM
I would lead off with the economic status type questions.

I.e. lead her into discussing whether she thinks the government should provide everything for everyone (social security, welfare, large government employment etc).

From that answer (which since she says she's for limited government, reduced government employees etc), then you lead into whether she thinks people are responsible for themselves and whether she feels government should dictate what we are responsible for and how we live our lives (including e.g. mandate to buy healthcare insurance).

From that you can lead into the RKBA. Since, if the presumption is we are responsible for ourselves, and responsible law abiding citizens, why should the government dictate unreasonable restrictions on firearms.
If she says "guns are dangerous" i'd reply, cars are more dangerous. And ask whether she would want to limit the amount of cars a person is allowed to own. Whether there should be a 10 day waiting period for purchasing sports cars. And only the ability to purchase 1 car every 30 days.
If she says "reasonable restrictions", i'd ask "should law abiding, mentally stable, citizens with no criminal history of violence, be restricted from carrying firearms on their person, in public, whether displayed or hidden".