Replies

I don't think anything about Poizner is WAY better than Meg. Zilch. Plus, their positions on abortion are pretty much irrelevant at this point until such time Roe v. Wade is overturned -- so what's your point?

First of all, their positions on Abortion are not irrelevant.

If I cannot trust someone to fight for the lives of the most defenseless among us, if I cannot trust someone to make the easiest of decisions concerning morality, how can I trust them to do anything else from a position of principle?

Their positions on this issue is a bell-weather or litmus test of how they make decisions.

Do they make decisions from a foundation of morality or from a foundation of some sort of other selfish political position.

To repeat, Meg Whitman supports Taxpayer funded abortion.

Steve Poizner, while stating he is Pro-Choice, has also stated in the same statement his goal is to work towards zero abortions in California.

Furthermore, I trust Tom McClintock a whole lot more than the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Foundation.

And finally, Meg is very weak on Illegal Immigration. She does not like the new law in AZ, I believe 1070.

Poizner is fully supportive of the New AZ law and has been all over saying he wants to cut off benefits for Illegals, A La Prop 187.

Overall, I'll take Poizner over Meg.

They're both bad choices, but given Poizner's positions on Illegal Immigration and Abortion, Poizner is the best of a bad lot.

Poizner is a lying, flip-flopping insurance selling weasel who gave Al Gore 10K in Gore v Bush when we were fighting for control of the presidency. Someone on our side would never do that. He is not to be trusted AT ALL. I just wonder what scoopy he's got on McClintock. That endorsement makes no sense at all.

No sense fighting over it. Never mind. Meg looks like she will win it easily. Hope you come to your senses and unite to defeat Jerry Brown.