antigun Meg Whitman moving away from semi-antigun Poizner, but damaged goods...

[Fjold]

I wrote to Whitman, I told her I knew a bunch of conservative handgun owners who are prepared to give Brown their vote. I have now been contacted by one of her policy advisers who would like to have a sit-down and discuss my views...this should be interesting.

I'll give them credit for not blowing me off, but Lucy has some splainin to do.

IMHO all you will do is teach her staff what to tell her to say to appease the pro-gun vote. You will not change her mind or position on guns. She's had her opinions all of her adult life and ran her companies with virulent anti-gun policies.

No matter what she says, I won't believe any position change of hers on gun issues until I see her donate $10 Million to the NRA and immediately change EBay and Paypal into pro-gun companies.

[pdq_wizzard]

IMHO all you will do is teach her staff what to tell her to say to appease the pro-gun vote. You will not change her mind or position on guns. She's had her opinions all of her adult life and ran her companies with virulent anti-gun policies.

No matter what she says, I won't believe any position change of hers on gun issues until I see her donate $10 Million to the NRA and immediately change EBay and Paypal into pro-gun companies.

^^^ this +10mil

[advocatusdiaboli]

I tried to give Whitman the benefit of a doubt over eBay's policy, but he policy statement about firearm laws on her public safety policy page leaves no doubt she leans towards gun control though it probably won't matter since the Legislature does and will continue to do so.

Here's her policy statement--the "weasel words" are in bold (which is most of them):

"Meg supports the Second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, but she believes the right to bear arms can and should be balanced with responsible gun control laws. At this time, Meg believes that California does not need additional gun control measures."

So she won't take a stand--more control or less, but accepts the status quo "at this time" implying she might change her mind but gives no clue as to when or why she would--but makes it obvious the change would be to support more not less. She's lost my vote right there--she's "the it stays bad or get's far worse" candidate. I'm sorry I gave her the benefit of a doubt.

[hasserl]

I'm crediting him for not vetoing it.

It was a PROPOSITION!!!!! The governor is not empowered to veto a proposition that is passed by vote of the people.

[Gray Peterson]

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1925&

Brown Denies San Francisco Sheriff's Request to Opt Out of Secure Communities Program
SAN FRANCISCO - In a letter sent today, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. declined San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey's request to allow San Francisco to opt out of participating in Secure Communities, a national program that links the fingerprints of arrestees to a federal database maintained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that checks whether an arrestee is in this country illegally and has previously committed crimes.

"I think this program serves both public safety and the interests of justice," Brown said. "ICE's program advances an important law enforcement function by identifying those individuals who are in the country illegally and who have a history of serious crimes or who have previously been deported."

California law designates the California Department of Justice to maintain the state fingerprint database for law enforcement purposes. When someone is arrested, the county forwards the fingerprints to the DOJ to identify the person, determine his or her criminal history and to discover any outstanding warrants. As in every other state, the DOJ then forwards those fingerprints to the FBI to check for any history of criminal activity outside of the state. Under the Secure Communities program, the FBI also forwards fingerprints collected at arrest to ICE. Before the inception of Secure Communities allowing fingerprint identification, if a county suspected an arrestee was in the country illegally, the county submitted the person's name to ICE for a background check.

Brown's letter is below:

Sheriff Michael Hennessey
City and County of San Francisco
Room 456, City Hall
Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

RE: Secure Communities

Dear Sheriff Hennessey:

I am writing in response to your letter regarding the Secure Communities program developed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The program is scheduled to be rolled out in San Francisco next month. You requested that the California Department of Justice (DOJ) block ICE from running checks on the fingerprints collected in San Francisco. The Secure Communities program is up and running in 169 counties in 20 states, including 17 counties in California. Because I think this program serves both public safety and the interest of justice, I am declining your request.

The DOJ Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigative Services is the entity designated by California law to maintain a database of fingerprints used in the state for law enforcement purposes. When someone is arrested, the county forwards the fingerprints to the DOJ to identify the person, determine his or her criminal history and to discover any outstanding warrants. As in every other state, the DOJ forwards those fingerprints to the FBI to check for a history of criminal activity outside of the state. Under the Secure Communities program, the FBI forwards fingerprints collected at arrest to ICE. If ICE finds a match to prints in its database, ICE notifies the county. ICE's stated intent and practice is to place holds on those individuals who are in the country illegally and who have a history of serious crimes or who have been previously deported.

Prior to the Secure Communities program, the name, but not the fingerprint, provided by an individual on arrest was run through ICE's database of people known by ICE to be in the country illegally. Often, individuals with a criminal history were released before their immigration status was discovered. Using fingerprints is faster, race neutral and results in accurate information and identification.

In these matters, statewide uniformity makes sense. This is not simply a local issue. Many of the people booked in local jails end up in state prison or go on to commit crimes in other counties or states.

I appreciate your concern. But I believe that working with the federal government in this matter advances important and legitimate law enforcement objectives.


Sincerely,

EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General

[OleCuss]

Yeah, it's pretty weird to keep seeing Jerry Brown stomping on what is supposed to be his loony leftist base. I saw an article in the SF Chronicle about the above in yesterday's paper as well.

It's a bizarre thought, but Brown really might be more in line with conservative policies/values than are the viable Republican candidates.

One other thing. I think Poizner is finished but the polling keeps making me think I may be wrong. There are just too many squirrely things about match-ups against Brown, favorable vs. unfavorable ratings and the like for me to be certain that he is truly out of this race.

It could be very interesting in the next week or two.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Yeah, it's pretty weird to keep seeing Jerry Brown stomping on what is supposed to be his loony leftist base. I saw an article in the SF Chronicle about the above in yesterday's paper as well.

It's a bizarre thought, but Brown really might be more in line with conservative policies/values than are the viable Republican candidates.

One other thing. I think Poizner is finished but the polling keeps making me think I may be wrong. There are just too many squirrely things about match-ups against Brown, favorable vs. unfavorable ratings and the like for me to be certain that he is truly out of this race.

It could be very interesting in the next week or two.

I've said it a few dozen times now. Brown may have done some crazy things in his younger political carrer, but his thinking was always something I could follow. From the "Moonbeam" communications satellite to the defunding highway projects, I understood him. Plus, he was frugal, even to himself. Very frugal.

I'm voting Poizner in the Primary, but Brown in the general. Anything but Meg. Or Sandy Huchens.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Well, all I can say is so far this election has me really frustrated. I don't like any of my choices. I've been very pleased that Brown did not come after my guns as Attorney General. It is pretty much the only reason I am willing to consider him over say Meg Whitman. But I just don't know enough about Steve Poizner yet to say Brown has my vote. I do know he came off really poorly during the debate with Whitman, far too mean spirited, and that won't play well in a general election. I don't think he is charismatic enough to beat such a skilled politician like Brown. Truth be told, I could stand to learn more about Meg Whitman as well. I assume she is anti-gun because her company is clearly so anti-gun, but it is not like she has a record I can look at to know for sure. I would like to see more evidence of that if anybody has it? She comes off as clueless, not just inexperienced, and we all saw how well that worked for Palin. So it is not like I can be a pragmatist and vote for the one most likely to beat the Democrat, nor am I even sure I would want either of over Brown. I get the impression from Whitman that she is really a Democrat who knew she wouldn't get the party nod with Brown in the race so she ran as a Republican. I need to do some more reading before that opinion solidifies in my mind. All this "you're a liberal, no you're a liberal" amongst the Republican candidates is really playing in Brown's favor. It gives the impression to conservatives that he is the most conservative of the bunch without him ever having to say so and without upsetting his base. The question is, is it true? The very fact that I am willing to even consider voting for a Democrat has me crying in my beer. I am definitely grasping at straws here to find a better choice.

We have to face a reality here. There is only one Dem in the race. All others dropped out long ago. Brown hasn't had to spend any campaign money, and his warchest is probably huge, if nto growing after the primary. The Dems are salivating at the chance to see him in office. Anything after Arnie.

And Meg, with all her money, won't get a single Dem vote, and with all the disgusted conservative voters over Arnie, it's likely a lot of them won't turn out to vote for her. Or Poizner, if he makes it past the primary.

Brown has this just about won, IMHO. And I strangely will be one of his votes. The letter to the SF PD Chief just about seals it for me.

[bigstick61]

Poizner polls within a point of Brown, last time I checked, so I don't think it will be the Brown landslide some people are expecting. I would rather have someone without Brown's wacky environmental policies in office, and Poizner certainly fits that bill. I really don't see Poizner coming after peoples' guns.

[bwiese]

Poizner polls within a point of Brown, last time I checked, so I don't think it will be the Brown landslide some people are expecting. I would rather have someone without Brown's wacky environmental policies in office, and Poizner certainly fits that bill. I really don't see Poizner coming after peoples' guns.

Poizner won't come after people's guns.

But he's a POS that will readily vote for (or not veto) antigun bills. He's already told the NRA to screw off once.

[Fjold]

Poizner's history says that he will raise taxes. That's the biggest negative for me.

[Sgt Raven]

Poizner won't come after people's guns.

But he's a POS that will readily vote for (or not veto) antigun bills. He's already told the NRA to screw off once.

Stevie will trade a anti-gun bill for something he wants.

[KylaGWolf]

+1. 2A is all that matters to me from my state government. In my view the government and economy in california will take decades to fix--if indeed it can ever be much more than "band-aided" at all. California spent $14 billion on healthcare for illegal aliens in 2009--no one in the legislature nor any candidate from governor has the will to fix that. Our teachers are the highest paid in the nation, but our spending per student, bureaucrats (non-teachers per student) and class sizes are ranked in the 20s and test performance is in the 40s--no one is fixing that. Prop 13 allowed a housing value bubble that has still to fully pop making housing prices relative to income some of the most unaffordable in the country--there is no fix that won't hurt homeowners so it won't be fixed by anyone. Municipalities are cutting to the bone and the state won't be far behind--and still taxes will increase though we get less and less for our money. I could go on, but you get the idea. The problems are very long term and most are intractable. Stick a fork in CA, it's done. While I live here a bit more, I just want my 2A rights.

Not sure where you are getting your stats but California teachers are not the highest paid in the nation. I know that the starting pay for a teacher in San Diego is only 18k a year. Not great wages if you have college loans to pay off and still try to live. I know many other states pay more than CA does for teachers. I also know what a lot of the teachers put up with and lets just say they have no control in the classroom because they are told they cannot discipline due to fear of lawsuits from parents.

While yes some of Browns ideas are out there he is still better than Meg will ever be. Sorry she is pro giving illegals rights and no matter how she tries to sugar coat that now I don't trust her to protect legal residents in CA. That alone loses my vote then throw in that she is not pro 2A well I wouldn't vote for her no matter who she was up against.

[bigstick61]

Poizner won't come after people's guns.

But he's a POS that will readily vote for (or not veto) antigun bills. He's already told the NRA to screw off once.

Well if you are going to accuse him of being the sort to readily support anti-gun bills, why don't you post proof for us all to see, because given how much you're gunning for Brown everything negative about him be damned, I'm not inclined to believe you just because you say it is so.

[BigDogatPlay]

Yeah, it's pretty weird to keep seeing Jerry Brown stomping on what is supposed to be his loony leftist base. I saw an article in the SF Chronicle about the above in yesterday's paper as well.

That is an advantage driven by the fact that Brown is running unopposed in the primary. He is his party's de facto nominee and in about 10 days it will be official. Clearly he is positioning himself for the general election against (almost certainly) Meg Whitman.

He doesn't have to worry, too much, about his loony leftist base. And finding middle ground with fiscal and social conservatives gains him votes in the general from the other side of the aisle.

It's a bizarre thought, but Brown really might be more in line with conservative policies/values than are the viable Republican candidates.

Considering that the Republicans have, pretty much, swallowed the Green Kool-Aid, yeah.... he really is more in line with conservative policies and values. Go figure, huh?

One other thing. I think Poizner is finished but the polling keeps making me think I may be wrong. There are just too many squirrely things about match-ups against Brown, favorable vs. unfavorable ratings and the like for me to be certain that he is truly out of this race.

It could be very interesting in the next week or two.

Granted a week is a lifetime in an election cycle, but Poizner's campaign is (my view) moribund and doomed. The (foolhardy) endorsements of Meg by Gingrich and Palin have the deal sealed, I think, even though ultimately I believe those endorsements will come back around and bite the endorsers in the butt down the road.

But that's politics. Those endorsements were made to the virtually certain winner in exchange for future considerations.