Part of the Bay Area News Group

New ad by ‘Jerry, Inc’ mocks Whitman’s settlements

By Steven Harmon
Friday, August 13th, 2010 at 3:03 pm in Uncategorized.

After several weeks of dark time, “Jerry Brown, Inc.” (otherwise known as California Working Families for Jerry Brown for Governor 2010) will soon be back on air.

Titled “Shoved,” it will begin airing a new TV spot (albeit cable rather than network) starting Monday, part of some last, parting shots against GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. No decision has been made on how long it will run, though the labor-backed group is working on another that should take ”Jerry Brown, Inc.,” (the Whitman camp’s endearment) into Labor Day, when Brown will finally take the reins of his TV advertising campaign.

This 30-second ad makes light of a few of Whitman’s indiscretions, which she made go away with convenient settlements.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Elwood

    Lame!

  • Sara and Meg WHO ??!!!

    Elwood is absolutely correct – Meg’s claims of fiscal conservatism can only be labelled as “lame” !

    After all, the woman from Atherton appears to possess the all the diversity of a singular game plan – — spend spend spend spend spend.

    And, hers is seemingly not a modest ineffectiveness. She feels it necessary to outspend any previous attempt at the Governors office by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE ! ! ! !

    Claim fiscal conservatism all you want – but her actions seem to substantiate the notion that this gal is quick to max out the credit cards !

  • RR, Uninvited Columnist

    (channelling S&M)”We jus’ simple country folks out here in the Golden State. We dont like it when some fancy gal spends our hard-earned money to beat a royal road to the guv’s mansion. Wait, you says its her money? Why, gosh dern it, they musta handed her one of them Golden Parachutes or Golden Handshake, or something golden. It jus’ ain’t fair! That money could help a transgender, illegal immigrant, recovering drug addict, or a homeless man with learning problems!

  • Sara And Meg WHO ??!!!

    Seems like it isn’t the “simple country folks” that dont get that it aint about the “WHO’s” money it is question.

    It’s about the HOW MUCH you gotta spend to accompompish a goal – you know, as in “fiscal effectiveness” as in “doing more with less” . .

    On *that* front the woman from Atherton “.. sho dont seem to know how to accomplish a goal without spending a whole lot mo’ of whosevu i tis”

  • John W

    If the MEGster wins, we’ll be sure to submit RR as a candidate for diversity outreach director — even to the S&M community it seems.

    Not seein’ much to love about either candidate so far. Not that it makes much difference, given the way we’ve tied the hands of both the executive and legislative branches. Either Meg or Jerry could do a good job if given a free hand. Neither can under current circumstances. Term limits for legislators, just to make sure they’ll never know much about anything. Two thirds requirements just to make sure we never agree on anything. Fixed formulae for how finite resources get spent. Can’t fire, furlough, or, in the event of a layff, pick and choose who goes or stays. Can’t reorganize departments. Can’t deal with retirement benefits, ‘specially for current employees. Even if they just started working yesterday, their deal is set for 60 years out (30 working + 30 retired) — unless, of course, we sweeten the deal. I.e., nobody’s in charge. One “expert” on the radio suggested that we boycott the guv race by not voting for either candidate. That reduces the signature threshhold for getting a constitutional convention on the ballot. If we get that, I’ll recommend we go with a benevolent dictator form of state government until stuff gets fixed. It’s called aligning authority and accountability.

  • Sara and Meg WHO ??!!

    A whole bunch of what John W says is good common sense, but at the end of the day – you gotta saddle-up and vote. . . .

    So, as you say – it’s back to Meg and Jerry . . .

    And while I’d LUV to accept her message of fiscal conservatism, she shoots herself in the proverbial forehead with her actions. You just can’t say “Vote for Meg, the fiscally conservative one.” – - – while simultaneously outspending everybody in recorded history by such a VAAAASSST margin !

    Any manager that brought me THIS business plan and goal with her budget woulda’ been tossed from the Board room – or worse – terminated on the spot !

  • Elwood

    Re: #4

    Lame!

  • RR, Uninvited Columnist

    S&M, I guess a candidate who spends very little to get elected is a genius in your book. Nancy Pelosi will win her House seat spending less than she leaves in tips at a few fancy restaurants. Therefore, the Speaker is brilliant and a fiscal conservative.

  • Sara And Meg WHO ??!!!

    Oh, no – not at all a “genius” as you say. But at least willing to back up any claim of fiscal conservatism or responsibility in his/her actions.

    You know, words matching actions kinds of fundamentals.

  • Elwood

    Perhaps S&M can explain to us what spending your own petty cash has to do with “fiscal conservatism”, whatever that might be.

    She’s spending her own money, and what she’s spending is just chump change to her.

    The Obaminator is spending OUR money like a drunken sailor. With apologies to drunken sailors everywhere of course.

  • sam kennedy

    I wanted to make an opinion about third party candidate Chelene Nightingale for governor ca. This person, has chosen to live a life that some would call, cloaked in “darkness.” She has chosen this dark path because of a need to fool the american people. I know this as I am very close to a relative of this woman. They are appalled at her Out and out lying to the marican public, and her anti-government rhetoric. I personally warn all Americans to do your homework, on this character, before donating any time or money. Thank you

  • Sara and Meg WHO ???!!!

    Come on Elwood . .I know you had some modicum of b-school education . . its the creation of a predetermined goal and the resource you burn through to achieve that goal – NOT, who paid for it. And, in Meg’s case – she can’t figure out how to deliver a goal without out-spending every other manager who has attempted the same objective. . . . including her predecessor who spent no where near her budget !!

    But, if you MUST stay mired in this redirect of WHO is paying for Meg’s attempt to buy her nomination – I suggest we re-visit that minor little Goldman debacle and assess just “who’s” money is TRULY being spent. . . ..

    But, back to the point at hand, please tell me you get this b-school fundamental . . . please (?)

  • Elwood

    S&M, you shouldn’t stay up all night drinking and smoking crack.

    Your post makes no sense whatsoever.

    But that’s nothing new.

  • Sara and Meg WHO ???!!!

    None whatsoever . . .
    You’re right Elwood.

    LOL !!!

  • Sara And Meg WHO ???!!!

    http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/18/3709952/after-long-hiatus-meg-whitman.html

    “I ACTUALLY think I am very warm, friendly, fun, easy to be around,” she said. “And I think most people ACTUALLY, who came to my events, ACTUALLY were quite persuaded. I think ACTUALLY people did in fact quite like me when they met me in person.”

    Wowie -

    It would appear that the Megster has a bit of a conflict going on somewhere. Do you suppose she’s trying to convince herself, or, her audience ?