Quantcast

Jerry Blows His Only Play, Turns on Clinton

Sep13

Updated 8 am: In our original post, Calbuzz set out what we thought was Jerry Brown’s best option for dealing with Meg Whitman’s new killer ad.

Brown then turned around and did the one, ridiculous thing it never occurred to us he could be dumb enough to do: Pick a new fight with Clinton, as shown on this video clip reported by Time’s Mark Halperin and ABC’s Jonathan Karl.

Unbelievable. Good luck with getting help from the Clintons now, Gandalf.

(For the record, at 8 am, we also updated the hed on this post, which originally read: “Jerry’s Only Play: Get Clinton to Attack Brooks Jackson”).

Fueled by 5-Hour Energy Berry Flavor shots, Calbuzz spent an edgy, sleepless weekend closely monitoring short-wave radio reports about the blazing fusillades of budget facts and figures the rival campaigns for governor exchanged over Meg Whitman’s latest ad attack on Jerry Brown.

The ad features a short clip from a contentious April 1992 Democratic presidential primary debate between Brown and Bill Clinton, during which Bubba cited CNN to charge that a) Krusty raised taxes as California governor and b) lied about his record in doing so.

As we forecast on Friday, shortly after Team Whitman first aired the tough spot, the truthiness of its allegations would be found in weighing the conflicting evidence presented by Brown’s campaign and Brooks Jackson, the former CNN reporter who now runs factcheck.org at the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

Whitman’s (and Clinton’s) evidence is a report by CNN’s Brooks Jackson; Brown’s claim that taxes were cut by about $16 billion during his tenure (not counting Prop. 13) cites the 1981 Economic Report of the Governor from the California Department of Finance.

There followed a 48-hour whirl of unstinting effort by Department of Finance flack H.D. (“guess I lost your number”) Palmer, determined persistence by MSM journos Ken McLaughlin and Seema Metha, and fact-checking of two decade old fact-checking by stand-up-guy Jackson himself.

“I was wrong when I said that “state taxes were still higher” during his last year than when he began. In fact, they were a bit lower,” Jackson wrote after reviewing the actual facts.

Now that the smoke has cleared over the battlefield, Calbuzz can ride in to shoot the wounded while reporting the clear and unequivocal bottom line of the episode as follows:

1-Taxes inarguably went down over the period of Brown’s two terms as governor, according to non-partisan state budget records.

2-Jackson’s 1992 report, and therefore Clinton’s derivative attack on Brown, was incorrect, because, as he acknowledged, Brooks used the wrong start and end dates to make his calculations.

3-The Empire of eMeg couldn’t care less about the truth or falsity of the substance of the attack they’re making, and intend to keep running their killer ad.

Sez eMeg chief deputy under assistant purse carrier Tucker Bounds:

CNN is a lot less relevant than the indisputable fact that Bill Clinton, not me, said that Jerry Brown turned a $6-billion surplus into a $1-billion deficit, opposed Proposition 13 and ‘doesn’t tell people’ the truth.

To which Sterling Clifford, trusty Gandalf message bearer, stamps his foot and responds:

For Meg Whitman to continue running an ad she knows is false is intentional dishonesty, and voters should expect better from a candidate for governor.

Oh, that.

No truth, no consequences: As all loyal Calbuzzers know, the Whitman for Governor campaign represents Exhibit A for the most distressing national and state political trend of the millennium (“Ground Zero mosque” anyone?) which we termed in this essay, “The Death of  Truth.”

It’s now clear that a candidate with unlimited resources can and will blow off complaints, critiques and factual analyses of those who dare to speak up and will instead declare that the truth is whatever he or she says it is — in their paid advertising and the assertions of their mercenary prevaricators.

To summarize the instant case: independent, unbought-and-unpaid-for, third party finders of fact determine that Whitman’s charge is untrue, but she pays no price for continuing to air it, as her army of lavishly paid water-muddiers simply persist in performing an ape dance of ersatz fact-based debate, which to an average voter may seem so…confusing…and…boring and…oh look, there’s Bill Clinton calling Jerry Brown a liar again…

Why take down the ad if it’s working? That’s got to be eMeg’s calculation.

So what’s a 72-year old Zen Jesuit to do? Brown has four options:

a-Put up his own ad calling Meg a liar for continuing to run an ad which isn’t true. Problem: talk about your expensive He-Said-She-Saids.

b-Complain endlessly to the MSM. Problem: Have you looked at newspaper circulation trends lately?

c-Ignore it and move on. Problem: The key to his campaign narrative is his authenticity vs. her phony marketing campaign – he can’t afford to have a debate over honesty simply be a draw.

d-Get Clinton to make an ad, or at least a public statement, on Brown’s behalf, to wit: “My charge back in 1992 that Jerry Brown raised taxes when he was governor was based on a news report we now know was incorrect.  Jerry Brown didn’t raise taxes. And Meg Whitman knows it. It’s just dishonest of her to use me to make her case. ‘Cause if I could vote in California, I’d vote for Jerry Brown and I think you should too.”

As a tactical matter, Brown has at least a couple of plays here: Plead with Dianne Feinstein to make a call to her pal Hillary Clinton to have her make a call to Bubba, if she can find him. Or enlist AFSCME president Jerry McEntee or another labor bigwig close to Hillary, to make the ask. Or call on Barbara Boxer, who is close to the Clintons, or Ron Burkle, or Steven Spielberg.

Oh sure, there’s a long history of, um, really bad blood there. But Brown can certainly appeal to Clinton’s historic relationship to California — in 1992, he became the first Democrat to win the state since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and, in the process, picked what was at the time called “the lock” Republicans had on the electoral college. If he ever wants Hillary (Chelsea?) to be president, he sure doesn’t want Whitman as governor of California. He may not like Brown, but wouldn’t he rather have him as governor than her?

And as Shimon Peres famously said, “Peace is made with yesterday’s enemies – what is the alternative?”


subscribe to comments RSS

There are 9 comments for this post

  1. avatar tonyseton says:

    1 – Meg Whitman is a disgrace to everything our country stands for.
    2 – Jerry Brown should hold a news conference and call Meg Whitman an outright liar.
    3 – Slick Willie should be be going from media market to media market throughout the Golden State acknowledging that he was using incorrect information and that Meg Whitman is a liar. But he’s too busy bestowing a medal on Tony Blair, the Bush poodle who made the invasion of Iraq possible.

  2. avatar patwater says:

    Maybe this betrays some substantial naivete, but wouldn’t make a lot a sense for Jerry Brown to ask Bill Clinton himself? Bill actually won the presidency, and victory can help people feel magnanimous. Especially when the defeated come to them with an open gesture of respect and ask for help. I’ve found genuine people to be one of those few invariants that really unites all of humanity.

    So I’m skeptical that that gets entirely lost in nihilistic void of power politics.

    • avatar pjhackenflack says:

      Excellent suggestion Patwater. Per our 8 am update, Krusty decided to take a very, very different route, however.

  3. avatar Silent Sleuth says:

    Impulsive, arrogant and stupid. Way to go, Jerry.
    Plus the “I never had (fill in the blank) with that (fill in the blank).” line is quite juvenile at this point.

  4. avatar RL Crabb says:

    There is only one solution to this act of buffoonery by Jerry…write in Bill Clinton for governor.

  5. avatar david says:

    You must be kidding. Jerry’s remark was unexpected but quite funny — and further illustrates that he will say what he thinks, which is an asset, not a liability. There are far more Dems and independents who will smile at that line, than partisans who are still brittle from the Lewinsky years.

  6. avatar tegrat says:

    Having Clinton speak directly on your behalf might be more of a political liability than an asset. It will appeal mostly to voters he already has in the bag. The approach he chose might not be such a bad idea, as David suggests.

  7. avatar BigCahuna says:

    I’m simply astonished by Brown’s comment. Really??

    Memo to Brown & Co: If you’re running a no frills campaign against a billionaire — you have to execute perfectly, take advantage of every opportunity you’re given … AND NOT MAKE STUPID MISTAKES.

  8. avatar LemonMeister says:

    More on your dream guy Ronnie Burkle, Clintons money pal. Burkles legacy includes building more homes that turned out to be LEMONS than any other homebuilder in history. Just Google KB Home Sucks. Please post your complaints with this Burkle – who thought he was a homebuilder, just there to bilk Fanny and Freddy out of their mortgages along with, countrywide (aka kb home countrywide mortgage) , to the FTC Federal Trade Commission. The article sounds like another press release by KB Home. Enough with KB Home lies misleading the public and the government guess no one wants to do the sting on KB Homes deceptive practices not even the media since KB’s Board runs them too. KB Home ignores customer’s complaints and does not repair in a timely manner in TOTAL violation the 1979 FTC Consent order. What do you call timely? Still waiting after 20 months for KB Home to repair major defects? Where is the responsibility of KB Homes board including Stephen Bollenbach and Ron Burkle who are trying to control Barnes and Noble – Shareholders please say no to these 2 KB Home directors, it won’t be beneficial to elect them to the board of B and N.

Please, feel free to post your own comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • CIGNA