Jerry Brown Associate Calling Meg Whitman ‘Whore’ Has Effect on NOW Endorsement
**Written by Doug Powers
And ironically that effect was to speed up the announcement of the National Organization for Women’s endorsement of Jerry Brown:
Jerry Brown announced he has received the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, less than 24 hours after the emergence of a recorded message in which Brown can be heard in a conversation with advisors in which someone calls Whitman a “whore.”
And the “Duh of the Day” from Whitman’s campaign manager:
“Meg Whitman is a pro-choice woman who was ranked among the world’s most accomplished women in business,” said Whitman campaign manager Jillian Hasner. “She’s now running to become the first woman governor in California’s history, and on the same day that it’s reported Jerry Brown’s campaign called her a ‘whore,’ the National Organization [for] Women endorses him. It’s official: NOW is a partisan organization.”
That wasn’t previously apparent. It’s all about politics — liberal politics. NOW even supported Bill Clinton in spite of his history of treating women like toy fire hydrants in the horndog kennel. In the ultimate slap, NOW later endorsed Barack Obama over Bill Clinton’s wife (maybe “what ‘strong’ woman would have put up with all that s*#t?” was part of the line of reasoning there).
Meg Whitman’s campaign should wear NOW’s non-endorsement as a badge of honor instead of trying to list reasons they should have received their endorsement. “Hey, we’re for abortion too” isn’t an acceptable rebuttal, but I’m not from California, so maybe it makes more sense out there.
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Who’s funding Brett Kimberlin?
May 25, 2012 01:52 PM by Michelle Malkin
23 CommentsObama’s Land of the LOST
May 25, 2012 01:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
48 CommentsObama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
52 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
193 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day; Donation fund for targets
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
112 Comments
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 Comments
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?
Doug, and this is a point that I keep making over and over again to no effect, Meg Whitman is NOT a California choice. She was another aberration foisted onto California Republicans by the hopelessly corrupt and entrenched CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE. If there is any version of the GOP that is more of a hermetically-sealed country club of liberal special interest “good ole boys”, this is it.
Republicans in CA are every bit as embarrassed with Whitman as the Democrats are with Brown. I don’t know anyone, Democrat or Republican, who likes either one. So how is it that they are our candidates if Californians don’t want them? Is it the fault of people like me? NO! But people like me are fighting the entire country because RINOs who think they are conservatives refuse to drop their anti-CA bigotry and differentiate between the many conservative CA voters and the entrenched GOP apparatus.
When I hear know-nothings from defacto open-borders states like Texas (who keep electing machine politicians like Bush, Perry, and others), Arizona (do I need to elaborate? McCain? Kyl? Napolitano?), Michigan (domestic Islamic terror center of America?), and elsewhere, it makes it clear to me that conservative and Republican voters at the grassroots level are every bit as dumb as any other political “affectation” (that’s all it is, just another trendy but empty attitude without the clarity of principled conviction).
If we plan on succeeding with the Tea Party movement, we need to lose the ignorant attitudes. Big states like California are important and they are winnable. We all live in states where the political apparatus has been hijacked by an entrenched power structure that is keeping us out. Here in CA, it is particularly hopeless because of non-Californians have the same attitude towards us as Muslims have towards Israel.
We didn’t want Whitman nor Fiorina, YOU guys did. The Republican establishment, with the help of “girl power” McPalin, crammed Fiorina down our throats and now endorses both.
I am not a Republican and the more I see the Tea Party walking blindly into the corrupt Republican camp, the more I lose hope for California. If America wants a bankrupt California (as if that won’t take everyone else down), get ready for it, it’s coming. Voting for “Gangs of McCain” Republicans will not, no matter how desperately Mark Levin rationalizes his argument for it, lead to anything constructive.
The “Pasadena Phil Rule” is in effect this year for me. More than ever. If you Republicans want my vote, stop cramming Democrats down my throat. I don’t eat crap sandwiches no matter who serves them to me and I don’t hold my nose anymore.
A reminder from Meg Whitman why I don’t really care who wins. Either way, the people lose. CA hasn’t had a decent governor since Reagan and they won’t be getting one this time.
And as to NOW, it’s like Ann Coulter says, they are nothing more than the official abortion lobby. It isn’t about women anymore and hasn’t been for decades.
Bill Clinton’s two alleged sexual assaults (Kathleen Willey/Juanita Broaddrick), dropping his pants in front of Paula Jones were dismissed as minor by the National Organization of Women as Bill Clinton “did so much for women. Clinton’s Clown James Carville talked of “Dragging a hundred dollar bill through a trailer court” (Paula Jones)and NOW said nothing. NOW represents a strange subset of women.
===
Let your sidearm be like American Express:
Don’t Leave home without it.
To me abortion is a first magnitude moral issue. If someone supports sucking the brains out of babies then I don’t trust them on any level on any issue. I do not vote for pro-abortionists under any circumstances. That’s one of the reasons why I am neutral in Whitman-Brown but I strongly support Fiorina over the horrid Boxer.
One last point and I’m off to have fun.
If you want help understanding why CA is a winnable state for conservatives, think back to ancient times when no one thought MA could be approachable by conservatives. Ted Kennedy dies and suddenly MA isn’t so homogeneously liberal anymore. Guess what. It never was. I grew up there so I know.
In CA, the GOP cut a deal with the Dems and accepted permanent minority status. It’s not the Democrats who destroyed CA, it’s the GOP. They surrendered and now are doing the blocking for liberal Democrats.
We should have made California a central battle ground this year but everyone fell in love with McPalin. Now we are all excited over victories in small states like MA, AK, and DE. It didn’t have to be this way.
NOW is a dinosaur and hasn’t been relevant to anything in 30 years. Yawn.
Pasadena Phil: I sort of agree. I live in the Bay Area and work for San Francisco government and even THERE no one appears to have any enthusiasm for Brown. Everyone seems to be ignoring the entire race and hoping it just goes away.
Nevertheless, I hope Whitman wins. The thought of Moonbeam being unleashed to bring another wave of destruction on this state is to horrible to imagine. At least she can veto the worst crap.
NOW is a big bad joke played on the women of America. They should be ignored and made irrelevant. Why do we even give them any legitimacy whatsoever? Just because they made themselves relevant, doesn’t mean they actually are! Just another group to throw on the trash heap of failed ideas, along with Obamacare, etc. etc. etc. That trash heap is getting awfully big! Maybe it is time to light a fire.
CA has political problems and I agree, it is the strangle hold that the corrupt manipulators have that cause the problems.
Another hero in his own mind leaps forward to slap the the stupid little people across the face with a new manifesto about truth, justice, and the American way.
Of course NOW is endorsing Brown. They’re whores.
*No change here; NOW believes, as does P-BO, that it is okay to kill live, breathing babies; And Meg Whitman is no better, being pro abortion, but only since her mother made the one and only RIGHT choice can she have an opinion at all; How ungrateful!
Welcome to the nineties. As Doug has pointed out, NOW outed itself as just another whining liberal idiot’s club with zero credibility when Clinton was dropping his pants regularly, and he was still their boy.
I think the bigger story is the obvious disdain of Brown, the current state attorney general, of the police.
Meg Whitman is “pro-choice?” Well then, why does any of this matter? It certainly doesn’t matter to me, other than for NOW’s obvious hypocrisy in continuing to choose they guy over the girl. I don’t know how they sleep at night…
Yohann, you’re right; it doesn’t matter. I even agree with Phil, so far as the governor’s race goes. The senate race is an entirely different matter.
Carly Fiorina is pro-life, wants Roe-Wade overturned, supports offshore drilling, supports Arizona’s immigration law, supports 2nd Ammendment gun rights, is a pro-business, small government conservative. Her opponent is probably the worst of the 100 senators, the left-wing, obnoxious Barbara Boxer.
Tammy Bruce, previous president of the L.A. Chapter of NOW resigned from the organization for that reason.
***
The “traditional” Republican Party is going the way of the old Whig Party. The future is a Socialist Party (aka Democrats) and a Conservative Party.
***
Take the RINO’s with you and drop them off with the Socialists on your way to the ash heap of history, Republicans. We’ve had it with you.
***
John Bibb
***
Meg Whitman could be gay, and she still wouldn’t get the endorsement of the NAG gang, known as NOW. This organization is exclusively the domain of the Democrats, and Communist Party USA. Conservatives need not apply. (And, why would they?)
What, besides their partisan bent do we know about these, um, women?
For the most part, they are ugly inside and out. They are ALL some form of progressives. They are militant. They’re socialist in their beliefs. They hate the USA, but are quick to get in line for federal handouts. Their membership is relatively small.
Pasadena Phil
Excuse me, but Republicans in the Republican primary chose both Meg and Carly so you can quit with the “shoved own our throats” canard.
And hey, I’m supporting both of ‘em and if you don’t vote for either, what you are doing is voting for Brown and Boxer.
But maybe that’s what you intended from the beginning..you’re just doing a “concern troll” meme here
NOW has been irrelevant and without credibility since the Clinton era.
Embarrassed of Whitman?
Why not vote for her instead of the Democrat?
Californians should see what she has to offer and if she isn’t conservative enough, vote her out!
Californians should show perseverance and at least inch toward the right if many really want their state to become conservative. It’s better than going nowhere (or backward).
@ DarleenClick:
Gotta disagree w/you.
First and foremost, I’m a Christian.
I am fully convinced that the government we have is the government we’ve earned – ’cause our votes are a reflection of what’s in our hearts (and that says a lot about our current political scene, dunnit?)
For me, the support of abortion is anathema. No matter what the prevailing attitude of the day is, that’s supporting pre-meditated murder.
And if a human will choose convenience over principle, where else will they be “flexible”?
I’ll gladly cast a vote for Fiorina.
Whitman – pass.
Least, wouldn’t Whitman be the first albeit baby-step toward the right and where you would ultimately want to be via another more conservative who could follow her as governor? The ‘means to an end’ sort of thing…….
That’s right, Phil, it’s everybody’s fault but the California voters.
Gladz, I’m sure you’ll agree that the end doesn’t always justify the means.
Agree. But as I stated before, voting for Whitman could become the beginning of changing California’s direction toward the right.
Phil’s a legend in his own mind. Actually, his posting looks more like a DNC sponsored “Tea Party” agitator. I’ve been skeptical about him as long as I’ve been reading his posts. He’s like the guy who goes to Tea Parties and holds up the pro-Nazi or racist signs.
I’m skeptical that Whitman represents even a small step in the right direction. If Whitman wins and Fiorina loses all you’ll hear is how this proves Republicans can win by being “moderate” and abandoning the social right. On the other hand, if Fiorina wins and Whitman loses it will be proof that the road to victory for Republicans is to stand up for conservative family values. Does this mean I’m for Brown? No. It just means I can’t manage to care who wins between Whitman and Brown. It’s a lose-lose situation. The Fiorina-Boxer contest, on the other hand, is like a choice between night and day. We’ll be partying big time at my abode if Carly wins it!
I don’t understand the negative connotation that some attribute to the word whore. In my experience, a whore is a woman who is slightly more attractive than the average, who realizes that she can earn more dollars engaging in pleasure than she can selling her services to a traditional employer. To me, a politician who acted like a whore, would be one that makes strategic decisions to get the greatest return for the resources on hand. With all the resources that America is presently declaring undesirable – shale gas, traditional oil, coal etc., a whore-like attitude from a governing politician would be a welcome change.
If any of you remember what it was like living under the “leadership” of Jerry Brown before, will understand some of the campaign slogans we had back then. My favorite was,
“If it’s Brown, flush it!”
(Yeah, the Dem’s had a clever one also; “Reagan is Rosemary’s Baby!”)
Governor Moonbeam was horrible! It took Ronald Reagan years to unravel the train wreck we called, “Brown droppings.”
California voters chose to have term limits for a reason. Jerry Brown, although he served prior to this law being passed, is violating the intent and the spirit of that law by running for Governor again.
He is so out there, I’m not sure it’s a thirst for power, or the desire to stay in the “family business” that motivates him. He certainly doesn’t have any new ideas. They’re all the same;
middle class tax relief,
better schools/education,
better working conditions for immigrant workers/farm laborers,
and support for unions.
He will bury California, which is on it’s last legs, for the benefit of the unions. Some things never change.
Meg Whitman is pro-choice? Opps. I thought she was conservative. Never mind. I don’t care who runs California into the ground, Linda Ronstadt’s ex-boyfriend or Whitman.
Where have you been, Jillian. That was obvious 40 years ago.
What domestic terror has Michigan experienced?
NOW has always been willing to give lib/progressive males a pass on whatever they say or do. Libs can lie, cheat and oppress women and get away with it. NOW will even provide an excuse. NOW needs a name change to NOLW.
@ #25 GladzKravtz:
It’s only when we move away from evil that a real change in life is made.
Heading toward a good thing by supporting evil (even a smidgen of evil) just ain’t gonna fly.
EXAMPLE: Re-establishment of Israel.
IMO, that was a very good thing.
But one of the factors that led to that re-establishment was the Holocaust. Is it your POV that support for the “Final Solution” was a good thing because, after all it helped the re-establishment of Israel? I don’t think so.
Give it a %^&*()* rest!
He’s not a troll, he’s not holding up nazi signs at Tea Party rallies.
I realize you’re one of his acolytes, which is fine by me, but your double standard is showing.
I’m not sure your example makes the case you think it does. The example shows how shallow and amoral it is for people to say it was good for Obama to get elected because otherwise the Tea Party wouldn’t have happened.
I learned in 1979 what the values these people are. When Pol Pot was butchering 1.8 million Cambodians, 25% of the population, William Kunstler the lawyer for the Chicago 7, was asked to comment. He said, “I make it a point to never criticize a socialist country.”
Meg Whitman could be gang raped by Brown’s staff on national TV and NOW would not care. Socialists never criticize socialists.
Frankly I hope that Brown wins in Cali. It would be the logical end of a state that began with such promise but one that will live on in mute testimony to the wicked evil tragedy that is Marxian Socialism. Why prolong the inevitable?
It will be vital that Republicans stand against the bailout attempts that are sure to come regardless of who is ensconced in the governor’s mansion…
Well said Fly. Is that guy still alive? As I said these people are evil. Heirs to Stalin, Mao, and Hitler.
My POV regards the current subject. It is what I believe and I won’t play with analogies.
Again my point is, voting for Meg Whitman is a step rightward from Jerry Brown. And if she is elected and she isn’t conservative enough (or is a female Jerry Brown), Californians should vote her out for someone who is more conservative. Meg is the nudge rightward.
Roland, I was so depressed after BHO was elected that I actually did think this. I needed to see some light at the end of the tunnel. You might think it was shallow/amoral … to me, it was desperate!
So which one is the conservative choice again?
Much like the gay community who continues to be sold out by Dems, so too is NOW/NAG. Nothing makes me want to shovel money in the direction of an activist group more than steadfastly shakey principles.
Nope, Kunstler’s gone to The Great Commune.
That is just hopeful thinking after the fact. You did what you could to stop it from happening. The “shallow and amoral” dig was not directed at you.
BTW, Obama’s election was not the greatest disaster in and of itself, although it was a humdinger. The Democrat swamping of Congress in 2006 and 2008 was the real disaster. The “reach across the aisle to get things done” (really meaning Give The Democrats What They Want) President McCain would have been ghastly, too, but just clearly not as bad (think, for example, of judicial appointments and apologizing to tyrants and the functioning of Obama’s Department of Justus).
The argument that it would have been harder for the Tea Party to have arisen under President McCain has some merit …… just as the argument that the rebirth of Israel would have been more difficult without the Holocaust has some intellectual merit.
Anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to let Governor Moonbeam get back in charge in California has a screw loose.
The one where they are eaten by ants for all eternity?
Re my #39:
The point I was trying to make was that pragmatism (vote for A ’cause B is worse) is, at its core, wrong. We need folks who do what’s right, simply because it’s right and I will not – I cannot – vote for the lesser of 2 evils. Why? ‘Cause the result is still evil.
Californians voted overwhelmingly for Schwartzeneger. He was a “Big Tent Republican” i.e. – pro-choice, pro-gay, etc. – how has that worked out for us?
BTW, Whitman also opposes CA Prop 23. Prop 23 seeks to end the devastation that’s been visited on California’s economy due to the insane standards of AB 32 (Global Warming mandates that, in the words of the CA Air Resources Board, “cannot change the course of climate change”) – pragmatism at work.
Moonbeam also opposes 23.
Whitman can’t be too much of a “whore”. She announced the “start engines” command at Fontana. Well to progressives, it could be another “example”; being at an American-loving event, complete with a Christian prayer and fighter fly-over.
And the point I was making was that you are wrong. When the only real choices you have are between two evils, you are choosing between the lesser of the two evils or you are choosing the greater of the two evils. Or you are allowing others to choose the greater of two evils, which would make you not just immoral, but an immoral worm, like a pacifist.
The correct choice, when we have been trapped into only having those two choices, is always the lesser of the two evils, and it is never the greater of the two evils.
The correct moral thing to do after having been trapped into having to choose a lesser evil is to work very hard to keep from getting caught in the trap again.
IOW, you work to get good candidates who have a chance to win.
Yes, it really is that simple and straightforward.
I find it astonishing people have trouble understanding it, but, then again, I have trouble understanding how people can think things like intelligent design or anthropogenic global warming are science, or how people can fail to understand socialism is just the modern pure evil justification for the crushing of liberty.
And personally, I’m tired of Phil and his stooges describing anybody with whom they have the slightest political disagreement as “evil”. There’s plenty of real evil in the world, and I earnestly hope that Phil and stooges are never unfortunate enough to learn the difference the hard way.
Certainly, in a free country, people can choose to vote any way they want. In fact, when the curtain closes, no one knows how someone voted.
However, we generally have a 2 party system. Thats what primaries are for. Each one of the major parties chooses their candidate of choice in the primary. Meg won the Republican primary in CA. Moonbeam won the Democrat primary. There are about 6 Gubanatorial candidates to vote for or you can choose to vote for none. Thats our choices. Do what you think is best. As my favorite baseball team perennially says, Just wait till next year! I would hope my team signs the right players but even if they don’t I still support them and have hope they can do something good.
If Tea Party conservatives can win in CA, why did they NOT win? I am not happy about it but they obviously did not get their message sold in the primaries. The actual voters did not choose them. Facts is facts. Blaming Bush or Palin or Steele does not change that fact.
It might seem that way to political novices, but there is that pesky little thing called “reality.” The reality is that we have only three choices that matter:
1) Meg Whitman
2) Jerry Brown
3) Letting someone else decide, whether by not voting at all or by voting for someone we now know for certain has absolutely no chance to win.
In the race for the Senate there are the complicating and conflicting factors regarding conservative control of the GOP Senate caucus or GOP control of the Senate, but in the race for Governor the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ choices are crystal clear no matter how much distaste we have for RINO’s.
If one of the odd candidates was building a base from which to launch a serious third party in an attempt to topple one of the existing parties, then that could also be a complicating factor, but none of them are remotely close enough going into the general election for that argument to be anything more than nonsensical gibberish.
Very well said.