Q: Will Jerry’s Mea Culpa Hose Down Bill? A: Yes
Update 1:15 pm: In a statement to the LA Times, Bill Clinton today endorsed Jerry Brown for governor saying he and Brown had patched up their differences from the 1992 presidential race and that Meg Whitman’s using his attack on Brown is misleading.
“I strongly support Jerry Brown for governor because I believe he was a fine mayor of Oakland, he’s been a very good attorney general, and he would be an excellent governor at a time when California needs his creativity and fiscal prudence,” Clinton said in a statement to the Times. If Clinton mentioned what he thought of Brown’s previous two terms as governor, it was not reported.
“Clinton agreed that the [Whitman] ad was misleading, and said his claim was based on an erroneous report,” the Times reported. And they quoted Clinton further saying: “Moreover, the tough campaign we fought 18 years ago is not relevant to the choice facing Californians today. Jerry and I put that behind us a long time ago.”
Clinton also endorsed Gavin Newsom for lieutenant governor “because of his strong support for Hillary in the 2008 primary season and because of his impressive record of innovation and accomplishment.”
Later on Tuesday, Brown issued the following statement:
“I am deeply honored to have been endorsed by former President Bill Clinton, who, after his accomplishment-rich presidency, continues to demonstrate his commitment to bettering our state, our nation, and our world, each and every day.”
For the record, the headline on this piece, before we saw the Times posting (congrats to Seema Meta who had it up online at 12:27 pm) read: “Will Jerry’s Mea Culpa Be Enough to Hose Down Bill?”
Our report as originally posted:
Calbuzz hears that right up to the moment on Sunday when Jerry Brown lost his marbles and his self control and went negative on Bill Clinton Krusty was really, really, really close to a deal for the popular former president to do something very helpful for Brown’s campaign for governor.
Despite the bad blood between these two monumental egos, Clinton apparently had been persuaded – likely with assists from California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton and San Francisco Mayor and Lite Gov candidate Gavin Newsom – that defeating Meg Whitman and electing Democrats should be Clinton’s priority.
Even if it meant helping Brown, whose self-important primary challenge was a relentless thorn in Clinton’s side during the 1992 presidential campaign; the memorable primary battle between the two resurfaced last week, when Team Whitman made Clinton the start of a new ad using an 18-year-old presidential debate clip where Bill says Jerry is a taxer and a liar — based on a CNN report which the original author now admits was wrong.
But something about Clinton seems to turn Brown into a raving lunatic and so on Sunday, in a couple of cheap, throwaway lines, he insulted Clinton as a liar and dredged up the Monica Lewinsky affair by quipping: “I did not have taxes with this state.” How stupid is that? Anyway – That’s our job!
It’s also worth noting that the Calbuzz archive will prove that we had already warned him that everything is on the record in the 21st Century which he, in his digital dotage, seemed to have forgotten, or maybe never knew.
Recognizing that Brown had stepped in a pile of his own…making, his campaign called a quickie press conference on Monday to try to clean up the mess. “Bill Clinton was an excellent president. It was wrong for me to joke about an incident from many years ago, and I’m sorry . . . I’ve made my share of mistakes, and my inappropriate joke about President Clinton is one of them. But from me you’ll always get the truth.”*
Whether his mea maxima culpa will be enough to assuage Clinton, we can’t predict. Better, we thought, Brown should have flown to New York, put on a blue dress, assumed the penitential position and . . . begged Clinton for forgiveness.
Brown’s people say he called Clinton and got as far as the senior staffer they’ve been talking to about Clinton’s participation in the California campaign. Apparently, Brown doesn’t have the juice to get a call through to Clinton himself. How sad is that? Still, Brown’s peeps say, plans for Clinton to campaign in California (for Barbara Boxer, for Brown, for the ticket or all of the above, we don’t know) are still a go.
If Clinton does lift a finger to help Brown it will be because he is, despite everything, a hard-nosed political pragmatist who, for a lot of reasons, doesn’t want a billionaire female Republican governor of California hovering over national politics for the next eight years. (Can you say President Hillary Clinton? Reapportionment? Meet the Press? )
And because he wants to help Boxer, a longtime ally whose daughter Nicole was married to Hillary’s brother Tony Rodham from 1994-2000. Also, Clinton would want to help Newsom, who was a prominent supporter of Hillary’s in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, Team Whitman — gloating over the great reviews their ad is getting — ignores the fact that Brooks Jackson, the former CNN reporter on whom Clinton was relying when he made his charge against Brown, has since acknowledged he was wrong. Instead, they’re clinging to Jackson’s argument that his report was essentially “valid.”
“As I said then, rising taxes in Brown’s early years helped bring about a tax revolt. It came in the form of Proposition 13” Jackson wrote. But in this context, that’s misleading. Those “rising taxes” were the result of inflation in the housing market – not Brown’s tax policies. By trying now to make it look like his original report had merit, Jackson has given Whitman an excuse to perpetuate her lie.
Yes, Brown vehemently opposed Proposition 13 – as did eMeg campaign chairman Pete Wilson and most other people in public office. And once it was passed, he implemented it with relish and allowed state spending to increase, spending down a big surplus, to make up for billions in funding lost by cities, counties and schools.
Despite that, Brown’s spending as governor – adjusted for inflation and population, as economists do when comparing dollars in and out over time – were actually lower than his predecessor, Ronald Reagan. The Associated Press has a story detailing that fact.
As if any of these facts matter.
*Inquiring Jesuits want to know: Brown’s comments about Clinton on Sunday – and his effort on Monday to wave them off as a joke – got us thinking about Michael Kinsley’s famous formulation that “a ‘gaffe’ is the opposite of a lie – it’s when a politician tells the truth.”
Putting aside the Lewinsky portion of Brown’s bonehead remarks, it seems to us that the more serious part of his statement on Sunday came when he said, “I mean Clinton’s a nice guy, but who ever said he always told the truth?” Those words call into question the former president’s fundamental honesty.
Brown never directly addressed that comment during his damage control press conference, when he apologized only for his “inappropriate joke.”
Instead, Brown simply concluded by saying, “But from me you’ll always get the truth.”
Which raises the question: Was Brown “always” telling the truth on Sunday, when he said that Clinton had problems telling the truth? Or was that just a gaffe?
What I don’t get is why what Clinton says have such a resonance in California. I understand the history with him being the first Dem to win a presidential election in California in a long time, his continued popularity, yada yada yada. But shouldn’t California’s leaders be the ones to, you know uh, lead us?
Having a pissing contest about what an ex-president said almost 20 years ago doesn’t move the ball forward. It just strikes me as another instance of the fundamental cowardice of our political “leaders” to face the tough choices that the future of California requires.
With that here’s a shameless self plug for what I’ve written on the matter: http://www.patrickatwater.com/2010/09/californias-leadership-vacuum.html
What nobody has seemed to have noticed is that CNN was right, statistically speaking, in using as a base year for comparison of Brown’s tax effect the year BEFORE Brown’s reign. That method would truly reflect what Brown and the Legislature did on taxes beginning Brown’s first year through his last.
This little change of perspective makes Meg right and let’s Brown claim that he did better on taxes than Reagan if adjusted for inflation…which of course is an equation and a comparison of a different nature. And the beat goes on!
I thank Calbuzz for reminding us all of the true definition of a “gaff”. Beautiful! Just to add, my definition is when Brown inflicts on himself “foot and Brown disease”.
Let’s see, when it comes to comparing base years, on one side we have the California Department of Finance and on the other side we have Ernie Konnyu. Pick your expert.
makes most sense to me to use the first year of Brown being in office, since the taxes for that year were set by the previous admin and certainly not Brown’s. Is this not correct?
Not according to Ernie, it isn’t – particularly if such disingenuousness makes a Democrat look bad.
Oh, well. As they say, and as Ernie strives to prove here on a regular basis, there’s no fool like an old fool.
Bill Clinton made himself look like a true gentleman here. Just one of the reasons a lot of Dems still admire him in spite of his “slip-up”.
However – I’m still gasping at the lack of true integrity on the part of Brooks Jackson. That was a pretty goddamn big mistake, Mr. J. Especially given your job at the time.
If you made a mistake, admit it. Don’t dance around and try to spin it for yourself. Didn’t most of us learn that in kindergarten?
Factcheck.org my left foot!
Big on Clinton’s part. And a nice stroke back on Brown’s. Isn’t it nice when everybody plays nicely together?