Quantcast

Posts Tagged ‘Bill Whalen’



Hot Flashes from Sacramento; Campaign ’18 Update

Friday, April 1st, 2011

When Republican Senate leader Bob Dutton publicly complained that Governor Brown ignored him during budget talks – while First Lady Anne Gust Brown “yelled” at him – most Capitol insiders no doubt had a good laugh at his expense, all the while thinking, “That Bob Dutton – he’s sure a wussy wimp!”

But not Calbuzz.

No, around these parts, the immediate reaction of our Department of Emotional Intelligence and Sensitive New Age Guys was to dispatch a company-wide email urging a corporate show of sympathy for the 60-year old senator.

The reason? The aggrieved Sen. Dutton clearly suffers from one of the most tragic syndromes that can afflict a man: the heartbreak of male menopause.

“The governor never asked for my help,” Dutton told reporters Thursday, doubtless bottling up sobs as he was questioned about the collapse of budget talks. “Frankly, I was yelled at more than I was talked to…and mostly by Mrs. Brown, not even Gov. Brown.”

That really makes our blood boil: What kind of woman does such a thing?

While more insensitive souls than ours instantly and cruelly tried to change the subject back to the state’s $27 billion deficit – “the dog barked at him, too,”  stone-hearted Brown flack Gil Duran said, for example – the alter cockers in our newsroom understand only too well the hurt and pain that come when other people ignore our emotional needs at a time of life when we’re at our most vulnerable.

So on behalf of those, like Dutton, who have suffered in secrecy, shame and silence for far too long, we offer some important information in hopes of building public awareness:

What are the Symptoms of Male Menopause?

Male menopause symptoms are very similar to those experienced by women during menopause, only much less intense. Common menopause symptoms include hot flashes, night sweats, fatigue, muscle and joint aches. Men also suffer from emotional symptoms like mood swings,  irritability, depression, and listlessness. (emphasis ours).

The primary treatment…is Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT). Like estrogen replacement in women, testosterone replacement aims to bring hormonal levels back up to a healthy level. Once testosterone levels are increased, most men begin to experience fewer symptoms. Unfortunately, testosterone replacement doesn’t always work well to combat erectile dysfunction. Because this is such a severe symptom for most men, other treatments for erectile dysfunction should be investigated.

Take heart, Senator Dutton, and please, get some help – it doesn’t have to be this way. And know that you’re not longer any more alone any longer.

We had to destroy the party in order to save it: Dutton’s little hissy fit highlights the utter inability of the current crop of California Republican leaders to see the big picture about their ongoing demise as a viable political party in the state.

Handed their biggest opportunity in years to achieve some cherished policy goals, Republicans instead snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and came away from budget negotiations with zilch.

Witnessing this sorry spectacle, one mad dog GOP blogger, of course, thumped his chest and did a little touchdown dance (“there is NO public policy trade off that makes it okay to then vote to place taxes onto a special election ballot”). Less, um, excitable party types (also less prone to using CAPITAL LETTERS TO MAKE THEIR POINT), have a different view, as the LAT’s Halper and Mishak ably report:

After the collapse of those negotiations, many in the Capitol are asking whether, in declining to provide those four “ayes,” the Republicans have cemented their fate as a dying minority party in this largely Democratic state.

“These opportunities don’t come up too much in Sacramento,” said Bill Whalen, a GOP political consultant who was an advisor to former Gov. Pete Wilson.

“If I’m the Republicans … I would argue for a minimalist approach,” he said. “Be able to declare victory and retreat. … That should have been part of the calculus.”

Or not.

In addition to the Republicans, however, our friend George Skelton sees plenty of blame to go around, listing for starters Brown’s kow-towing to labor and the apparent belief of state union goons that they, alone, should be spared from any budget pain, a pox-on-all-your-houses-view made manifest today by Calbuzz cartoonist Tom Meyer.

.

A leisurely stroll through the 11th hour, 53-point list of demands that Dutton presented to Brown when a deal was close, however, makes clear that giving equal weight to Krusty’s serious effort to find a compromise acceptable to Republicans on pension reform and the GOP’s unwavering irresponsibility about the state’s finances is a big-time false equivalence.

Moreover, for the CA GOP to complain now that Brown broke off negotiations — after they damn near adopted a resolution to castrate any legislator who even considered negotiating with Brown — is just nuts.

Campaign ’18 update: Lite Gov Gavin Newsom’s political advisers are miffed over a blind source item that the Chronicle’s Matier and Ross proffered the other day, reporting that Lt. Starbuck is already gearing up to run for governor.

Only weeks after Calbuzz waved the starter flag on the most important political race in California — the 2018 Democratic primary for governor — the paper’s gold dust twins tried to speed up the pace even more:

Less than three months on the job, and already Gavin Newsom is prepping to run for governor again.

A city insider who asked not to be named tells us the new lieutenant governor approached him at a charity fundraiser the other day with a request for help to start raising money for a renewed gubernatorial bid…

Newsom has opened a re-election campaign committee for 2014 – but there’s nothing to stop him from transferring any money he might raise to an exploratory gubernatorial run.

“The Matier and Ross item is silly,” counters Jason Kinney, Newsom’s political adviser. “They’re finding a story where none exists.”

Kinney, who oddly wasn’t quoted in the M&R column, told us he’s been in most of the meetings Newsom has had with political supporters, where the good lieutenant has made the point that he needs to put a political operation together for his re-election.

When Newsom’s asked, Kinney acknowledged, he discusses future options — like governor, Senate, whatever – as any other pol would do. But Newsom always makes clear that he will never run against Jerry Brown, Dianne Feinstein or Barbara Boxer, he added: “He’s talking about future plans — six, eight, ten years down the road.”

Gavin for Senate in 2028!

(Secret P.S. memo to Newsom: Dude, what’s with that whole unbuttoned second button thing, anyway? What’s next — tying up your shirttails to show off your midriff?)

Why Didn’t eMeg Sign Nicky’s Work Documents?

Tuesday, October 5th, 2010

Amid the still unanswered questions about Meg Whitman and l’affaire Nicky is why neither eMeg nor her husband, Griff Harsh, ever signed the employment eligibility document for their former housekeeper, as required by law.

Much attention has focused since the story broke on why Whitman-Harsh failed to pursue questions about the immigration status of their former maid, Nicky Diaz, after receiving a 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration noting a discrepancy with her social security number.

However, their handling of the legal form they were required to complete at the time they first hired Diaz, three years earlier, suggests even greater negligence in their exercise of due diligence, or lack of same, in employing her.

Under the terms of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, employers are required to complete and retain an I-9, formally known as an Employment Eligibility Verification Form, in order to “verify the identity and employment authorization of each person” they hire, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services bureau.

Part one of the form is to be filled out by the employee, and includes her name and address, plus signature attesting to her citizenship or legal immigration status.

Part two is to be filled out by the employer, who is required to record the title, number, issuing authority and expiration date of several identification documents provided by the employee, after personally examining them to establish to their satisfaction that the person is eligible to work in the U.S.

The employer also is required to record the date the employee began work and to sign, under penalty of perjury, a statement “that the above-listed documents appear to be genuine…and that, to the best of my knowledge the employee is authorized to work in the United States.”

When the Whitman campaign last week released a photocopy of the I-9 form for Diaz, the employee section was completely filled out – including Diaz’s signature falsely attesting to her legal eligibility to work. However, the employer section was not: details of the driver’s license presented by Diaz were recorded (in whose handwriting is unclear) but those of the Social Security card she was using were not. Also missing was the start date for her employment and a signature attesting that either Ms Whitman or Dr. Harsh, a neurosurgeon, had examined the documents and believed them to be in order.

Gregory Siskind, founder of Siskind-Susser, one of the largest immigration law firms in the country, examined the documents at the request of Talking Points Memo:

Looking at this, it is very unusual to see the documents that nothing is signed, there’s no dating on it — so there’s no indication that anyone actually looked at the documents,. That’s what the whole point is of the certification, that an employer is supposed to say I looked at these documents, they appear to be genuine.

Siskind elaborated on the matter on his Immigration Law and Policy blog.

Because the form is not signed or dated by the employer, it is far from clear that the employer even examined the documents presented. Keep in mind that Abercrombie & Fitch got a $1 million fine this week for violations of just this sort.

Incidentally, even if Whitman’s nanny agency handled the I-9, that doesn’t let her off the hook for violations in completing the form. The nanny agency was not the employer – just the agent and so Whitman and her husband are still liable for employer violations.

There appear to be paperwork violations. There could also be liability for “knowingly” employing someone illegally if the facts show that despite the presentation of a bogus social security card, the employer had independent knowledge or “constructive” knowledge that a worker was out of status. Certainly the fact that the I-9 was never signed by the employer means that the defense of saying that you looked at the documents presented and they appeared valid is not going to be readily available.

At her press conference last week, eMeg was asked why she hadn’t signed the Diaz documents. She replied, a) “I don’t know whether we signed them or not” and b) that she didn’t know “whether we were required to or not.”

You have questions, Calbuzz has answers: a) They didn’t and b) They were.

Memories of Glo-ri-a: Calbuzz first met celeb lawyer Gloria Allred during another governor’s race twenty years ago, when she was supporting Dianne Feinstein against Pete Wilson and threw a big fundraiser for Difi at her penthouse condo in Pacific Palisades.

Conscientious to a fault in our reporting, then as now, we showed up a little early, in search of some color to weave into what otherwise was shaping up as a thoroughly dozy yarn. When we introduced ourselves, Allred was friendly and gracious, if a little harried by the bustling preparations.

We asked her how many guests were coming, and she gave this memorable response: “I’ve got 250 people and 25 celebrities,” she said.

It’s an easy stipulation that Allred ranks high among the 90th percentiles of all time obnoxious people and shameless media hounds but, just to play devil’s advocate for a minute, it’s also true that, as a class,  aggressively intense and successful lawyers generally aren’t remembered for their sweetness and self-effacing personalities.

As anyone who’s been through bitter, expensive and/or prolonged litigation understands quite clearly – and we expect that many of her contemptuous  media critics have not had that life-altering experience – an attorney’s entire job is to be a major asshole, the bigger the better if she’s representing you. So tsk-tsking the shamelessness of Allred’s high-profile legal performance art is like criticizing lemons for being sour.

In that regard, we recommend the profile by our old friend Howard Mintz, who offers a fairer and fuller portrait of Allred from the seasoned perspective of a long-time legal eagle reporter.

The 69-year-old Allred’s tactics may make legal purists cringe, and she’s been called every name in the book — from “disgusting” by the wife of actor Rob Lowe, whom she sued on behalf of a former nanny claiming sexual harassment, to “shrill feminist attorney” in a depiction on “The Simpsons.”

But, as Whitman has discovered, Allred is a formidable foe. And despite the fact that her cases often make her clients instant celebrities of their own and force her targets to write fat checks to settle, she does tend to represent the underdog, such as the aggrieved mistress, the harassed woman in the workplace or, in this week’s case, an illegal immigrant housekeeper named Nicandra Diaz Santillan.

“You may love her, you may hate her, but she gets your attention,” said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola University law professor. “She stirs the pot.”

Tin foil hat brigade: Bill Whalen usually offers a smart and level-headed center-right perspective on California politics, so we were chagrined to see him join the ranks of the Col. Mustard with a candlestick in the conservatory conspiracy theorists (General Jerry with a machete  in the kitchen?) in search of some nefarious plot behind the Nicky revelations.

Here’s a clue fellas: If you’re looking for the real culprit, we suggest you start by taking a good hard look at this Meg Whitman person. Mum’s the word.

Polling outfall from Maidgate: Rasmussen, whom we don’t put much stock in because they use robo calls (and their party distribution, at 40%D and 36%R, is 3-to-5 points too Republican), now has the race at 49-44% for Brown. But we’re aware of two private polls, with more realistic D-to-R spreads of 7 and 8 points, that have  Brown ahead by 9 and 10 points. Worse, for eMeg — and we can only testify that this is what a couple of big-time clients believe to be true — these polls found the spread among Latinos to be 64-23% for Brown in one survey and 67-16% in the other. If that’s true, as Meg likes to say, among Latinos, she’s now down to paid staffers and blood relatives (having already lost extended family).

How Meg’s Citizenship Stand Hurts Among Latinos

Monday, August 9th, 2010

Can we get a fair program where people stand at the back of the line, they pay a fine, they do some things that would ultimately allow a path to legalization?
– Meg Whitman on citizenship for illegal immigrants, October 2009

So, I don’t think we should have blanket amnesty, and I am not for a path to citizenship. I have been very, very clear on that.
– Meg Whitman on citizenship for illegal immigrants, August 2010

By flatly declaring herself against a path to citizenship as she did on the John & Ken radio show last week, Whitman has, we believe, undercut her chances – slim as they might have been – of winning a significant portion of Latino votes in November.

Instead, she has driven voters to Jerry Brown who, if not entirely consistent on immigration issues himself, clearly supports developing a process by which illegal immigrants can become U.S. citizens.

This is a big blunder on the part of the Whitman campaign – on par with their decision to oppose AB 32, California’s pioneering climate change law, supported by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and iconic GOP figures like former Secretary of State George Shultz.

Together, these moves have hurt Whitman’s ability to capture votes from two constituencies that could decide the election: independents and Latinos.

Calbuzz has explained several times our thinking about independents and the environment.  See here, here and here, for example.

So now let’s recap why opposing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants – a position Whitman took to shore up her standing with conservatives during the GOP primary fight with Steve Poizner — is such a mistake by eMeg.

Since June 2007, the Public Policy Research Institute of California has asked this question:

If you had to choose, what do you think should happen to most illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years? They should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status or they should be deported back to their native country.

 

Overall, among all adults, the responses have ranged from 69% to 74% in favor of a path to citizenship. Democrats have hovered at about 80%, independents at about 70% and even Republicans at about 50%.

But among Latinos, the response has consistently been about 90%. This is not even a question for Latinos. It’s a core, baseline article of faith in the Hispanic community that illegal immigrants should not be deported but should, instead, be given an opportunity to become citizens.

eMeg has been on both sides of the issue, giving Working Families for California – the pro-Brown labor-funded independent committee – an opening to create a commercial accusing her of being “dos caras” – two faced. She is, in their Spanish language TV spot, “sin verguenza” – shameless.

Whitman’s problem is that as good as she might appear to Latino voters on jobs, education and cutting bloated government, she is on the wrong side on a deeply-rooted issue that is fundamental among this population. In fact, she agreed on the John and Ken radio show the other day that illegal immigrants should have to leave the country and apply through legal channels before they can become citizens.

John & Ken: No illegal alien is going to get any citizenship unless they leave the country and apply through the process. Is that true?

 

Whitman: Yes.

 

How are you going to make them leave the country and come back through legal channels, Meg? Shove ‘em, right? Unless her plan is to politely ask all the illegal immigrants to please, kindly go back home, we’re talking deportation.

Bill Whalen, the very smart former speechwriter for Pete Wilson who is now at the Hoover Institution, doesn’t believe Whitman has killed her chances with Latinos. First of all, he argues, “Every politician in America who opens their mouth and tries to speak lucidly about illegal immigration usually ends up creating problems for himself or herself.”

That’s true for Brown as well as Whitman, he believes, because illegal immigration is a Gordian Knot in American politics.

Moreover, he asks, “Is Jerry going to campaign on this?” Brown, he argues, has to be careful not to push too hard on the issue for fear of a backlash from voters who are not sympathetic to illegal immigrants.

But if PPIC’s numbers over three years are correct, Brown has little to fear from California voters by advocating a process by which illegal immigrants can become citizens: that’s a popular position. So why wouldn’t Brown campaign – among Latinos – on the issue?

If Brown ever campaigns at all among Latinos. Or anyone else.

For another – somewhat more partisan — look at this issue, you can read what the Oracle of Cruickshank has to say about it over at Calitics.

BTW: Camp eMeg argues — gamely but unconvincingly — that when Whitman said she was for “a path to legalization” she never meant “citizenship.” “She was talking about a temporary guest worker program,” the volcanic eMeg spokeshuman Sarah Pompei told John Myers.  “She supports a comprehensive solution that secures the borders first and includes a temporary guest worker program. What she said today is entirely consistent with what she has said before.”

Consistent, indeed.