Picking Scabs Causes Scarring

Meg Whitman has opened the wound that has become her voting record with yesterday’s comment on San Francisco’s KGO  Radio. What was beginning to scab over, has now been picked at by the candidate herself. Team Poizner is hiding all of the first aid kits and offering knives. 

While visiting with Ron Owens, a caller asked if she, “had ever voted before 2002?”

Meg answered by saying, “So the answer is that I don’t think the Sacramento Bee article is entirely accurate, but actually it doesn’t really matter because my voting record is not good.”

What a peculiar answer.

Immediately the Poizner Team jumped on Meg’s picking at her voting record scab, and the Sacramento Bee. Jarrod Agen, a campaign spokesman, said the issue is not going away.

“She’s had a complete lack of transparency with voters and the press on this,” he said. “She’s told multiple conflicting stories as to the why and when that that creates a problem because she’s not being honest. This will last until they answer the question of did she vote before 2002 and, if not, why?”

But what was Meg trying to say; it couldn’t be that the Bee was incorrect about her lack of voting in 2002, nor her lack of registration in 1998. It must be a reference to something previous.

Is Meg Whitman trying to tell us that she remembers (has voted) before; before 1998?

It doesn’t take much research to come to the conclusion that the San Francisco County Registrars Office has a few flaws when it relates to voting records. One doesn’t need to be convinced that the 1992 records transfer, from paper records to non-paper records, has had a few individuals claim that there were some transition errors.

Could Meg be offering the suggestion that she does remember voting before 1998, but that there are no public records to prove that she was – or wasn’t – registered.

Let’s make this clear – there are no question surrounding 1998, she didn’t vote and she wasn’t registered.

So what is Meg referring to?

My only guess is that she might have some remembrance of voting in her California experience, one that she just can’t let go of. And, in the end, there is no record to prove it.

Meg might have an overly active remming stage during her dream life that involves a great desire to pull the lever, punch a chad, touch a screen or even color in the circle, or the registrar’s records transfer has left many people off of the historical previous to 1992.

It sure is a peculiar comment to make by itself, especially coming on the heels of the press conference in Davis, California Monday, where Whitman gave an answer that was an attempt to place a period at the end of the voting sentence.

Why pick the scab off and cause more bleeding unless you believe there is something there – or should be. Seems like it is a topic that Meg can’t let go of for some reason. As it stands right now, Team Poizner is not running to her rescue with any political neosporin.

An Inconvient Truth 

On the other side of the GOP Gubernatorial front, there seems to be THREE checks that Steve Poizner personally penned to Al Gore’s past campaign and election recount committee.

You’ve read most of the details here at HOGUE NEWS, but here is the straight release today from Team Meg:

This campaign is engaged in a Republican primary election.  Political observers would agree that Steve Poizner’s $10,000 contribution to the 2000 Al Gore recount committee, an organized effort to challenge the legal election of President George W. Bush, will prove to be unacceptable to Republican primary voters.

The fact is Steve Poizner wrote 3 specific checks to Al Gore’s 2000 election effort totaling $21,000.  In accordance with federal election law, political contributions of this size require that the donor identifies specific information. At the time the contributions were made in 2000, Steve Poizner disclosed his personal employer and occupation, identifying himself as the contributor. Poizner made those disclosures as required by law.

In 2004, when Steve Poizner was seeking election to the California Assembly, his campaign went as far as touting his personal contributions to Gore as a ‘bi-partisan’ credential to deflect criticisms.

But now, struggling to compete in a Republican primary, Poizner has blamed his wife for the contributions on at least 6 different occasions.  And at least five times he cited the existence of a joint-checking account as the reason he was identified as the contributor.

To date, Poizner has given no explanation as to why his wife, who he has described as a life-long Democrat, did not write the check herself. In fact, Steve Poizner and his wife wrote separate checks to Democratic Senator John Kerry just 3 months after Poizner had contributed to the Gore recount.

Steve Poizner is blaming his wife and it proves he is the worst kind of politician; the type who will say and do anything.  His strong support of an attempt to overturn the legitimate election of George W. Bush is an irrefutable fact that is reflected in federal documents and still Poizner would rather blame his wife than take responsibility.

In 2004, when Poizner’s contribution to Al Gore served his interests he campaigned on it, and now that it is a political liability he is making excuses of the worst sort.

Meg’s Team is attempting to point out that Steve Poizner’s failure to explain why federal documents contradict his campaign claims will show voters why Poizner is the type of Sacramento politician who should be vetted and questioned; not elected.

I am waiting for Meg Whitman to make a comment about her refusal to hide behind her own skirt when she was buidling eBay, let alone someone elses’ when past contributions come up.