California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, who lost this year’s Republican gubernatorial primary after a particularly expensive, often nasty battle with former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, today endorsed Whitman and the rest of the GOP ticket.

Not much of a surprise, really; in his concession speech, Poizner said he and his supporters “believe that our state’s last, best hope is to defeat Jerry Brown and reform Sacramento. If Meg Whitman runs on conservative principles, she deserves our full support.”

Today, Poizner – who earlier this year said Whitman lacked the “courage and values to stand up to illegal immigration;” knocked her as a chronic non-voter; accused her of taking “sweetheart deals” as a Goldman Sachs board member; and so on – issued a statement that isn’t particularly effusive about Whitman individually, but it gets the job done:

“As we begin the traditional Labor Day kickoff of the general election campaign, Californians know very well that our state is in severe crisis and that the decisions made next year will in many ways decide what kind of future our state will have.

“The choice between our Republican ticket and the Democrat ticket could not be more clear. From Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina to Damon Dunn and Mike Villines, our ticket offers a clear contrast to candidates nominated by the Democratic Party.

“Our ticket is led by successful business women who know that if there is to be a viable public sector, there must be a vibrant private sector. They know that the best, most reliable job is one created by the private sector. They understand that governments, like families and businesses, must live within their means.

“Too many of the Democratic Party nominees believe that the answer to all our state’s problems can be solved by larger government. But government isn’t the answer. It has had its chance, and it has failed miserably.

“California voters have a clear choice in November.

“Our Republican ticket is our state’s best hope to fix governmental systems that are clearly in need of a major overhaul. On Tuesday, November 2, 2010, please join me in supporting the entire Republican ticket. Our state deserves nothing less.”

UPDATE @ 2:35 P.M.: “I’m grateful to have the support of Commissioner Steve Poizner,” Whitman said in a statement issued this afternoon. “Steve and I have a shared belief that we must improve California’s business climate, cut government spending and fix the state’s public schools. I appreciate that Steve is backing my campaign, and look forward to winning the support of all Californians who share my vision for making our economy stronger and our government more accountable.”

And, from Sterling Clifford, spokesman for the campaign of Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown: “Meg Whitman may find it easy to change with the political winds, but I guess Steve Poizner doesn’t. Poizner knows he was right about Meg Whitman the first time, and his tepid endorsement should give even committed Republicans second thoughts about their chronically dishonest candidate.”

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown launched his first television ad today.

“The summer is over, and the people of California are ready to hear from the candidates for governor,” Brown – who’s making four campaign appearances around the state today, including a stop late this afternoon at the Alameda County Labor Council’s picnic in Oakland – said in a news release. “We’re facing tough times, but if we pull together as Californians first, we can restore our state’s dynamic economy and get California working again.”

Predictably, the ad highlights Brown’s former gubernatorial tenure: It says he helped lead California through $4 billion in tax cuts, establishing and maintaining the state’s status as a world-leader in renewable energy, and creating 1.9 million new jobs over eight years.

“Meg Whitman and her allies have spent $130 million, much of it attacking Jerry Brown,” Brown campaign manager Steve Glazer said in the news release. “The attacks are false, the voters don’t buy it, and they are ready to hear Jerry Brown explain how he’ll turn California around.”

“Despite a summer of politics-as-usual attacks, the race remains a dead heat,” he added. “This is the start of an aggressive ad campaign that will be matched with aggressive public outreach to present voters with a clear choice.”

That sort of makes it sound as if this is the first ad that has been aired on Brown’s behalf – which, of course, it isn’t. A labor-backed independent expenditure committee already has spent millions to air a slew of spots attacking Whitman’s record.

UPDATE @ 10:28 A.M.: “After 40 years in politics protecting the status quo, it’s no surprise that Jerry Brown is kicking off his campaign with a misleading historic renovation of his own record,” responds Whitman campaign spokeswoman Andrea Jones Rivera. “After eight years as governor, he left California with 11 percent unemployment, 1.3 million people were unemployed and the state faced a $1 billion deficit. He left the state ‘flat broke and flirting with bankruptcy.’ Jerry Brown is the last person we can trust for ‘major change’ in Sacramento.”

UPDATE @ 9:27 A.M. TUESDAY: Rivera called me this morning, taking umbrage at Glazer’s statement that “Meg Whitman and her allies have spent $130 million, much of it attacking Jerry Brown.” She notes Whitman spent about $70 million in the GOP primary in which Whitman was battling Steve Poizner, not Brown, and has spent “not more than” the balance in the fight against Brown.

Rechecking the totals, I see Whitman spent $100,304,972 from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 – which wouldn’t include the money she has spent blanketing the airwaves in July, August and the first week of this month. Rivera just shot me an e-mail saying the campaign “spent closer to $20 million on advertising since the primary, including both positive and negative.” Meanwhile, she wrote, “the unions have spent over $14 million on anti-Meg ads since the primary.”

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday:

With nine weeks left until election day, Whitman has donated $104 million of her own money to the campaign, more than any other candidate in California history and within striking distance of the national record for a non-presidential contest, the $109 million spent by businessman Michael Bloomberg to secure a third term as mayor of New York City.
[snip]
Her campaign spent $25 million on television over the summer, more than what Schwarzenegger spent on TV in his yearlong reelection effort. By the beginning of July, she had spent $7.5 million sending mail to voters, almost double Schwarzenegger’s 2006 tally and a figure that does not count the more recent flurry of mail against her November rival, Democrat Jerry Brown.

As he was climbing into the car to leave today’s campaign event at Laney College, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown was asked whether his campaign has the resources to run a competitive race with mega-spending Republican nominee Meg Whitman now that a union-based independent expenditure campaign on his behalf is backing off.

“I’ve been ready for all of my life” for this campaign, he said. “In fact, I’ve been preparing myself just for this and I think I’m going to be quite successful.”

As Brown was driven away, his campaign manager, Steve Glazer, was telling reporters the campaign does have the resources to compete, while Whitman’s “brand is soiled given the type of campaign she has conducted” – that is, mostly attack ads that Glazier said are based on lies.

Glazer said his campaign estimates the average Californian has had about 180 minutes of Meg Whitman’s messaging so far – maybe 300 commercials, maybe 30 or 60 seconds each. “People have gotten the full measure of her and what she stands for,” he said.

Yet for all the money she has spent, he said – more than $100 million from her own pocket so far – she hasn’t taken a lead in the race; Real Clear Politics shows four polls taken in the past two months average out to a dead heat (although the two more recent ones have gone in Whitman’s favor).

Meanwhile, I’d snapped a few photos of the rally on my iPhone, and I assure you, the “light from above” effect was entirely unintentional…

California Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman’s campaign today launched its official iPhone application, offering “a menu of options for supporters and voters to learn more about Meg and her plan for California.”

The campaign says the app lets iPhone users “stay in touch with Meg on the campaign trail,” “learn the latest campaign news, view exclusive photos and video and keep in touch with Meg on social media platforms, like Facebook and Twitter.” Users also can share campaign details with their friends, sign up to volunteer with the campaign and encourage others to get involved.

The app was created by Purple Forge, which had developed a similar app for GOP U.S. Senate primary candidate Chuck DeVore. The company has offices in upstate New York; Ontario, Canada; and Georgia – and that proved to be fodder for the campaign of Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown.

From Brown campaign spokesman Sterling Clifford:

California is the home of Apple (founded when Jerry Brown was governor), and countless app developers, but it appears only a company based 3,000 miles away could meet Whitman’s campaign needs. Two million Californians out of work, thousands of California companies looking for business and trying to stay afloat, but Meg Whitman chose to take her business to Canada.

Whether it’s jobs for Californians, experience cutting spending or building on California’s environmental leadership, there is a vast gulf between what Meg Whitman says and what Meg Whitman does.

Californians deserve a governor they can trust – one with a record of helping the state create 1.9 million jobs. Jerry Brown is the only candidate in this race with real experience to get California working again.

I love Calbuzz but its witty posting today is particularly interesting.  Read what its venerable journalists Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine have to say about gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and her appearance this weekend at the state Republican convention.

(And no, I’m not going. Newspaper travel budgets being what they are these days.)

So the rhetoric was flying hot and heavy yesterday in the wake of U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s invalidation of Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional; statements were coming in at all hours (they still are, actually), and we got most of the salient ones online.

But now that most quarters have been heard from, I thought it might be interesting to juxtapose the statements from the major-party candidates seeking the offices of state attorney general, governor and U.S. Senator. Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, the Republican nominee for attorney general, was last to send his statement yesterday and we never got it online until now, so let’s start with him:

“Barring a law that is unconstitutional on its face, the proper role of an Attorney General is to enforce and defend the will of the People as manifested through the initiative or legislative process. The will of the People should be respected and not overturned easily or lightly. Today’s decision by a federal judge overturning Proposition 8 should be appealed and tested at a higher level of our legal system. The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 by a 6 to 1 vote and declared it to be constitutional. Likewise, if the voters had approved an initiative legalizing same-sex marriage and a federal judge had ruled against it, I would also support an appeal of that decision.”

From San Francisco District Attorney and Democratic Attorney General nominee Kamala Harris:

“Today’s historic decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a monumental step forward in the fight for equality.

“From the moment Attorney General Jerry Brown issued his analysis that Prop 8 violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, I have proudly concurred with him. That position has been confirmed by Federal Judge Walker’s opinion today and stands in a proud line of jurisprudence reflected so boldly in 1948 when California’s Supreme Court ruled that a ban on interracial marriage violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a conclusion finally reached in 1967 by the United States Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.

“Attorney General Brown, Judge Walker, and I have all sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. So, if I am given the privilege to serve as California’s next Attorney General, I will not defend the anti-gay Proposition 8 in Federal court. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for my opponent in the California Attorney General’s race, who promises to put the full weight of the state of California behind a defense of this discriminatory amendment.

“I pledge my support as this fight continues to another court and if necessary, the Supreme Court. I will continue to advocate for the defeat of Prop 8, whether we win that battle in the courts or at the ballot box. We may well face a lengthy battle on this issue but, as Dr. King said in 1967, ‘the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.’”

From Darrel Ng, spokesman for Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman:

“Meg supported Proposition 8 and believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Meg also strongly supports California’s civil union laws. Today’s ruling is the first step in a process that will continue.”

From California Attorney General and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown:

“In striking down Proposition 8, Judge Walker came to the same conclusion I did when I declined to defend it: Proposition 8 violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry, without a sufficient governmental interest.”

From Republican senatorial nominee Carly Fiorina:

“The people of California spoke clearly on this issue at the ballot box in 2008. That decision is being challenged through our court system and while I don’t agree with the judge’s ruling today, this is one in what will be a multi-step legal process.”

From U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.:

“This historic decision is a step forward in the march toward equal rights and reflects a growing legal consensus that marriage equality is protected by the U.S. Constitution.”

California’s Supreme Court today struck down San Francisco’s challenge to the part of the state constitution enacted by Proposition 209 of 1996, which prohibits government entities from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public contracting.

In doing so, it went against the advice of California Attorney General and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown.

The court in March 2009 had asked Brown’s office to file a brief addressing whether Article I, Section 31 as enacted by Prop. 209 violates federal equal protection principles by making it harder to enact laws on behalf of minority groups, and if so, if Prop. 209 was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

Brown in April 2009 filed a brief saying the section was constitutional insofar as it simply barred race- and gender-based discrimination, but was unconstitutional when “interpreted more broadly to bar race- or gender-conscious programs that would be permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment,” creating “an unequal political structure based on race and gender that is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.”

Back in 1996, then-Attorney General Dan Lungren – now a Republican Congressman – had argued that Prop. 209 didn’t involve the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hunter-Seattle doctrine, which established that the Equal Protection Clause is violated by a discriminatory restructuring of governmental decision-making in a way that places a “special burden” on specific groups without a constitutionally sufficient justification.

But Brown’s office last year said it could, arguing Prop. 209 “closes a door to race- and gender-conscious programs that the Fourteenth Amendment leaves open” and so “must be justified by a constitutionally sufficient reason.” And Brown’s office found no such reason.

“(T)here appears to be no factual basis to support a governmental interest in denying preferences that are permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment,” State Solicitor General Manuel Medeiros wrote for Brown. “Ironically, by effectively disadvantaging racial minorities and women in the political process, without an evident compelling governmental reason for doing so, section 31 seems to accomplish the very evil it purported to eliminate, viz. racial and gender discrimination.”

The Pacific Legal Foundation, representing the plantiff companies suing San Francisco for violating Prop. 209, filed a reply brief last year blasting Brown’s position.

Prop. 209 didn’t create a racial classification and didn’t restructure the political process to burden or benefit any race or gender compared to any other, the foundation argued, and Brown was wrong to presume the California Constitution can’t prohibit race- or sex-based discrimination that would be permissible under the 14th Amendment – the U.S. Constitution is a floor, not a ceiling, for protection of individual rights.

“The Attorney General’s current argument would turn the California Constitution on its head by prohibiting voters from ever amending their constitution to prohibit governmental entities from adopting public contracting programs that treat individuals and groups differently, or encourage others to do so on the basis of race or sex,” the foundation argued, accusing Brown of taking his position for the sake of “political expediency.”

The court issued a decision today concluding section 31 does not violate the political structure doctrine, essentially rejecting Brown’s analysis.

“It is unfortunate that California’s attorney general is not willing to defend the California Constitution but (is) actively trying to get it declared unconstitutional,” PLF principal attorney Sharon Browne said today in an e-mail. “Mr. Brown’s position is especially disturbing when Proposition 209 guarantees equal opportunities to all regardless of race or gender. Proposition 209 provides more protection to the people of California against discrimination and preferences than the United States Constitution.”

Brown’s argument was “particularly disturbing” given its reversal of Lungren’s stance, Browne said. “The ‘political expediency’ refers to the fact that Mr. Brown’s position that Proposition 209 is unconstitutional came 12 years later after the 9th Circuit found Proposition 209 constitutional, and Mr. Browne’s arguments are precisely the opposite of those presented by a former Attorney General.”

UPDATE @ 4:36 P.M.: Brown spokeswoman Christine Gasparac just sent this statement:

“Our position was very effectively conveyed by Justice Moreno in his dissent. He pointed out that Proposition 209 does not limit all preferential treatment in public employment, public education, and public contracting; rather, it limits only race and gender preferences. Proposition 209 does not, for example, limit preferences given to local residents in public employment or to children of alumni in admission to public educational institutions. Justice Moreno found that it is this unique burden on the ability of women and racial minorities to obtain preferential legislation that violates the Constitution.”

I was on KQED’s “This Week in Northern California” last night to discuss the latest developments in the senatorial and gubernatorial elections; the Chronicle’s Jill Tucker talked about California’s quest for Race to the Top education funding; and the Merc’s Paul Rogers discussed AB 32, Proposition 23 and electric cars.

Also, my Chauncey Bailey Project colleague Tom Peele talked about the latest developments in the Bey IV murder prosecution, and filmmaker Zachary Stauffer discussed his film on Chauncey’s slaying, “A Day Late in Oakland,” airing next Friday, August 6th at 8:30pm on KQED.

The latest Public Policy Institute of California poll shows likely voters are closely divided between Democrat Jerry Brown (37 percent) and Republican Meg Whitman (34 percent) for governor, with 23 percent undecided. Independents voters are split – 30 percent for Brown, 28 percent for Whitman and 30 percent undecided.

The same poll shows a similarly tight U.S. Senate race, with 39 percent of likely voters supporting Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer, 34 percent supporting Republican nominee Carly Fiorina and 22 percent undecided. Boxer’s lead is similar among independents, with 35 percent backing her, 29 percent backing Fiorina and 25 percent undecided.

The numbers came as part of PPIC’s survey of “Californians and the Environment.” Of those likely voters saying that a candidate’s environmental positions are very important in determining their vote, 50 percent would vote for Brown and 16 percent would vote for Whitman; among those who say a candidate’s environmental positions are somewhat important, Whitman is favored 42 percent to 33 percent. Similarly, those who view candidates’ positions on the environment as very important are three times as likely to support Boxer (54 percent) as Fiorina (18 percent), while those who say candidates’ views on the environment are somewhat important are evenly divided, 37 percent to each candidate.

Among the poll’s findings on other environmental issues:

And among other political findings:

Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,502 California adult residents reached by landline and cell phones throughout the state from July 6 through 20, with interviews conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese), Vietnamese, and Korean. The margins of error are two percentage points for all adults; 2.2 percentage points for the 1,971 registered voters; and 2.7 percentage points for the 1,321 likely voters.

Oakland mayoral candidate and former state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata gave $15,000 on Friday to Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown’s campaign. Don’t worry – even with his own campaign to run this year, the Don isn’t strapped for cash, seeing as how the consulting firm he runs with his son has pulled down almost $349,000 from the state prison guards’ union since the start of last year. (On a related note, I’d not noticed before that the California Correctional Peace Officers Association’s Truth in American Government Fund – one of the two CCPOA funds that paid Perata consulting – also made a $50,000 civic donation in January 2009 to Avalon Village, an Alameda nonprofit providing concierge-like assistance to seniors living in their own homes. Perata’s Hope 2010 ballot measure committee, supporting the tobacco-tax-for-cancer-research initiative he’s helping to put on the 2012 ballot, gave $50,000 to Avalon Village this March; Avalon Village and another agency to which Hope 2010 gave money are headed by a former Perata aide and possible past paramour.)

Meanwhile, the Perata campaign continues its grassroots organizing: The candidate tweeted this morning to thank the 107 volunteers who took part Saturday in a cleanup of East Oakland’s Sobrante Park area, carting away 5,280 gallons of trash. The next Perata community cleanup is scheduled for 10 a.m. this Saturday, July 31 at Shiloh Church, 3295 School St.; others are set for every Saturday in August.

But his electoral rivals are pounding the pavement as well. City Councilwoman Jean Quan held a community meeting in East Oakland on Saturday and a house party in North Oakland on Sunday; City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan is holding a fundraiser this Wednesday evening at Everett & Jones Barbecue, 126 Broadway.

In other Jerry news, Oakland columnist J. Douglas Allen-Taylor has launched a “How Very Jerry” website collecting about 75 pieces he wrote about Brown’s Oakland mayoral administration, first for the now-defunct UrbanView newspaper and then for the Berkeley Daily Planet. Says Allen-Taylor in introducing the site:

Just like Jerry Brown, too many high-placed Democratic officeholders too often abandon the traditions and philosophies of the Democratic party when carrying out their official duties these days, hoping that progressives will keep quiet in the November elections to keep from giving aid and comfort to conservatives and Republicans.
But if we always keep quiet, how will this pattern ever end?

Oakland is my home town. I love the city and its people too much to keep quiet when its public officials abuse the power we have given them. And so I choose not to hold my tongue about the years of the Jerry Brown Administration in Oakland.

The columns speak for themselves, and no other explanation is necessary.

It is possible that this website might help the campaign of Republican Meg Whitman who, if anything, would be a worse California governor than Jerry Brown, in my opinion. That cannot be helped. Voters should always go into the booth with their eyes open. If Jerry Brown is to be our next governor, at least Californians should not be able to say that we have not been properly warned.