Comments on: Meg: Jerry’s damned if he does or doesn’t

By: Elwood

Elwood — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:45:34 +0000

Fine points of political parsing, Mert!

Can you share with us your opinion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

By: Merton Hanks

Merton Hanks — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:21:46 +0000

Sorry Elwood – she told the Bee, regardless of the fact that she mentioned guards, she will “work with ALL the different unions” to renegotiate pensions and benefits. She told cops and firefighters 5 days earlier that she wouldn’t touch their pensions. She is lying to one of those groups.

By: Elwood

Elwood — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 00:23:09 +0000

Re: #5

A lot of people don’t consider prison guards public safety employees.

Therefore, no inconsistency.

Dig harder, Mert.

By: John W

John W — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:29:29 +0000

Bunch of nonsense. Pathetic. Neither candidate is dealing with much substance. Yesterday’s “What I would do if I were governor” piece by a conservative columnist in another paper across the Bay said far more about the real issues than both candidates combined. Even talked about the untouchable subject of Prop. 13. Of course, the writer doesn’t need to get votes.

By: Common Tater

Common Tater — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:21:39 +0000

I don’t particularly mind if Jerry Brown is damned both ways. Now if we could find a way to have his big mouth “dammed” from telling lies…

By: Merton Hanks

Merton Hanks — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:18:11 +0000

No problem, Elwood – I should have included them in post 3.

Meg on 9/15, saying public safety employee pensions are off the table:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/09/whitman-says-penion-reform-calls-dont-apply-to-police-firefighters.html

Meg on 9/20, telling the Bee that she’ll negotiate with “all the different unions” (she even mentions the prison guards specifically) – end of 4th paragraph:

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/09/meg-whitman-talks-pensions-pri.html

By: Elwood

Elwood — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 06:01:42 +0000

Yo, Mert:

You got any links to these assertions of yours?

Things taken out of context can have a whole different meaning. Not that I don’t trust you. Just sayin’, you know.

By: Merton Hanks

Merton Hanks — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 03:52:44 +0000

Elwood – are Meg’s actions here OK with you? It’s just another example of her trying to have it both ways on something – illegal immigration? Seemed like an entirely different candidate before June 9th, I wonder what happened the day before?

Meg just told the Sacramento Bee ed board re: pensions that “We have got to renegotiate these benefits. And I will negotiate in good faith with all the different unions.” When just, 5 shameless days earlier, she told the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association that all public safety employee pensions are off the table. So which option is true? It can’t be both. She’s either lying to the people of California, or lying to cops and firefighters.

By: Elwood

Elwood — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 01:28:55 +0000

It’s called politics, Josh.

A topic on which you are supposed to be an expert.

But Jerry’s got a “D” after his name so whatever he does is OK!

Right?

By: RR, Uninvited Columnist

RR, Uninvited Columnist — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:21:53 +0000

Jive Jerry could not place his “personal beliefs” above the law and still be attorney general.