Posted on 10/12/2010 9:42:26 PM PDT by kristinn
California gubernatorial candidates Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown debated tonight at Dominican University in San Rafael. The moderator was Tom Brokaw who raised the 'whore' comment with Brown.
Video of the exchange at Bay Area NBC
Transription by Kristinn.
BROKAW: Mr. Brown you did attempt to reach out to the police union. The telephone message was left on. It's now a notorious part of this campaign. In which somebody in your campaign referred to Ms. Whitman as a "whore." A campaign spokesman then described that as "salty language" and apologized after a fashion. We've heard no outrage from you about the use of that kind of language which to many women is the same as calling an African-American the n-word. Have you been in charge of the investigation in your campaign to find out who is responsible for using that phrase?
BROWN: I don't agree with that comparison, number one. Number two, this is a five week old private conversation...
WHITMAN: Oooohh.
BROWN: ...picked up on a cellphone, uh, with a garbled transmission. Very hard to detect who it is. This is not, I don't want to get into the term and how it's used. But I will say the campaign apologized promptly and I affirm that apology tonight.
BROKAW: You're repeating it to Ms. Whitman?
BROWN: Yes I am. I do. I, it's unfortunate. I'm sorry it happened. I apologize.
WHITMAN: So Jerry, it's not just me, it's the people of California who deserve better than slurs and personal attacks. That's not what California is about. It is not our better selves. And I, um, think people know exact...I think every Californian, and especially women, know exactly what's going on here. And that is a deeply offensive term to women.
BROWN: Well, can I just interject? Have you chastised your chairman, Pete Wilson, who called Congress "whores" to the public sector unions?
WHITMAN: You know better than that Jerry. That's a completely different thing. The fact you are defending your campaign...
AUDIENCE: Heckles Whitman.
WHITMAN: The fact you are defending your campaign for a slur and, um, you know, a personal attack on me I think it's not befitting of California. It's not befitting of the office that you're running for.
BROWN: It's unfortunate. Private conversation. I'm not even sure it's legal because you have to get the consent of all the parties and there's lots of people talking so, I again, Ms. Whitman I'm sorry it happened. That does not represent anything other than things that happen in a campaign. But the issue there of course is pension reform and the fact that you got the endorsement of that union. I didn't because they said I'd be too tough on unions and public employee pensions and I'll take that.
WHITMAN: So that's actually...
AUDIENCE: Cheers Brown.
BROKAW: Admonishes audience to keep quiet.
Tape ends.
“Yes. It is called leading. If you don’t lead, nobody will follow. Fewer and fewer citizens vote. The answer to your question should be obvious.”
I’m not talking about not leading, nor taking the high road. I’m talking about reasonably defending ourselves against dirty tricks (e.g. Gloria Allred’s stunt). You can defend yourself effectively without sounding like a whiner and a victim. For instance, Reagan did it well, W. Bush did not do it well.
I think it’s ‘ho’ for rappers, otherwise you’d be using an implement in the garden. :) My brother and I would cringe when we got ‘H-O’ when we played the basketball game HORSE.
Does he really believe that if she hadn’t taken the $120 million that the 10% wouldn’t have still been let go? If so he is delusional.
That was a useful link and very informative.
I'm having a little difficulty with your reasoning though. She accepted the bonus, right? I guess my morals are different that yours. Accepting something you know you should not have is a wrong as taking it yourself.
STATEMENT FROM WHITMAN: "I was offered $120 million by the board of directors at a time I knew the company was in financial trouble and was planning to lay off many employees. I could not in good conscience accept the bonus and so advised the board of directors."
You point makes no sense. It is precisely because 10% were going to be let go that you don't take the bonus. The company was obviously in trouble. From a business perspective only, it was not a good move.
You are honestly telling me that if you were on the board of directors, knew the company was in serious enough trouble that it had to lay off 10% of the workforce that you will award a $120 million bonus. I would have been pounding my hand on the table and saying, are you nuts!
I must be missing something here. Maybe it is just election time and you are so busy cheerleading you are willing to make excuses for anything.
The campaign tactics of both parties is driving people away from the voting process. Maybe that is the intention. But getting upset becuase someone called you a bad name is the stuff of school yard debate. It is not defending yourself. It is silly, especially in the face of the serious financial trouble we are in. It is sickening to me to watch.
This is not a WWF wrestling match.
The problem with exposing liberal hypocrisy is that it elicits only yawns. There is simply nothing unusual or unexpected about it. Mary Matalin explained this phenomenon a decade (or more) ago. Rudeness, perversion, dishonesty, hypocrisy, and slovenliness are expected, normal traits of the Democrat ilk. Nobody notices it any more than they would notice that a turd stinks. Of course it does.
You would see the same shrugs today even if Brown had called Whitman a “macacca”, whatever that is. The same slur(?) used by a Republican candidate would destroy that candidate, especially if he apologized for it.
Fortunately, this phenomenon is a template that the American public is understanding to a greater degree every election cycle. The public notices the hypocrisy. The Democrat “mainstream” newsrooms are dying off, and a new world of genuine journalism is taking root. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
FRegards,
LH
My point is that the 10% were not laid off so that they could give her the bonus, which is what the ad seems to say to some people.
However, this argument seems to be irrelevant since we now know that the 10% were let go AFTER she had left the company.
“If so he is delusional.”
Or just a manipulative liar...(smirk).
“The problem with exposing liberal hypocrisy is that it elicits only yawns. There is simply nothing unusual or unexpected about it. Mary Matalin explained this phenomenon a decade (or more) ago. Rudeness, perversion, dishonesty, hypocrisy, and slovenliness are expected, normal traits of the Democrat ilk. Nobody notices it any more than they would notice that a turd stinks. Of course it does.”
This is the problem. We expect it to stink, but we should also expect it to be cleaned up, and if they will not clean up themselves, then we will clean them up, as any adult would do for any child. If they act like children we will treat them like children. I thought actually, Meg did a good job of pointing out how childish Jerry Brown or his wife were.
“Fortunately, this phenomenon is a template that the American public is understanding to a greater degree every election cycle. The public notices the hypocrisy. The Democrat “mainstream” newsrooms are dying off, and a new world of genuine journalism is taking root. I wouldn’t have it any other way.”
You’re saying a LOT here that’s very important. Yes, the public is sick of the RAT hypocrisy - which is why it’s at least as important to point it out as ever (think Andrew Brietbart.)
Actually, how people and parties treat and speak to each other, respect and disrespect each other is important - at least as much as money.
I think the Democrat disrespect of Republicans and particularly of Conservatives, is why this site and Conservative media thrives. It’s not unimportant and silly. Go up to any ethnic group (including Caucasians) and slur them and see how silly and unimportant it is.
I just don’t buy your theory that our fiscal problems are more important than our moral suasions.
STATEMENT FROM WHITMAN: “I was offered $120 million by the board of directors at a time I knew the company was in financial trouble and was planning to lay off many employees. I could not in good conscience accept the bonus and so advised the board of directors.”
What’s the source on this, and the timeline between saying it and accepting the bonus?
We are going to go in circles on this one. we obviously have the same political perspective but debating finer details.
So Governor Moonbeam is going to try & hide behind the fact that not all the parties on that tape KNEW they were being taped?
That is just nuts.
IF I have an answering machine, I certainly KNOW that any message is being taped.
Brown knew THEY left the message.
What kind of dodge is Jerry —the Non Attorney General— trying to pull here?
Brown is a creep...
San Rafael is in the northern part of the Bay Area.
Democrat all the way. They would support a rabid raccoon if it was a registered Democrat.
Agreed.
On another note, I was unaware until recently that Brown was Gov. during the Med-fly episode in California. If ever there was an opportunity for an ad..
Not necessarily. Usually to some financial goal, but not directly to stock price.
Example: When Jim Hackett took over as CEO of Seagull, an independent gas exploration and production (E&P) company, his incentive was a promise of a bonus conditioned on concluding a sale of the company by a date certain. He did complete a merger (forming Ocean Energy), but whether that satisfied his board's objective, I don't know; it would be up to his compensation committee.
It was a link from a link in this thread, Sacramnto Bee article I belive. I never attributed anything to Whitman. I started this adventure asking if an ad Brown is running about Whitman is true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.