Meg-o-bytes

Since I’ve had Meg Whitman on my show three times in the past few months, I thought it might be good to download a few “Meg-o-bytes” today.

Here are a few small files that seem to grab everyone’s attention.

What’s the real story surrounding the Republican gubernatorial debates?

This past week I entertained former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and asked her about the lack of fall debates. You see, on May 18th, Whitman appeared on my talk show while Commissioner Steve Poizner and Representative Tom Campbell debated the June ballot at the Sacramento Press Club.

During that radio visit in May, Meg stated that she was inviting Insurance Commissioner Poizner and Tom Campbell, for that matter, to participate in three fall debates. Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner’s guber-campaign was clear in stating that they never received an invitation from Whitman.

As fall wore on the Poizner Camp began to air audio from Whitman’s comments stating that Meg had never inquired of the commissioner’s availability for fall debates. And that it was actually Meg Whitman who was performing as the “debate dodger” in this case. During Tuesday’s interview, I played the audio from that May 18th appearance for Meg and asked her if Steve Poizner was, indeed, contacted to debate this past fall.

“I think we did ask him whether he wanted to debate in the fall, and I am not sure exactly what the answer was. I’ll have to find out. There wasn’t a serious response that he gave us on that,” Meg replied.

After the show the Poizner Team stuck with their same story; that numerous organizations had asked Meg to join Steve for a number of dates, events and debates – but it is Meg Whitman who has refused to reply and engage. Someone might want to tell the right-hand what the left-hand is saying and doing, as it relates to the fall debates. The question is which camp has the problem? In this case, it is Whitman calling out Poizner as it relates to debates, or the lack thereof.

Then there is the payroll question; who should be paid and who should work for free?

Earlier in the week Meg Whitman announced that she would follow in the footsteps of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and not take a paycheck if she would find herself as Governor of California. Immediately the media ran to the other millionaire in the race, and asked Steve Poizner the same question.

Commissioner Poizner responded by saying that he would accept the adjusted $170,000 annual salary if he would be fortunate to be the next executive officer of the state. I asked Meg what she thought of Poizner’s response.

“I think it’s about creditability; if you’re asking for more effeciency and effective government, you need to put your money where your mouth is. So I feel like it’s the right thing to do…it’s about leadership, and the right thing to do.”

That’s two call-outs if you’re keeping track.

Ealier in the week, it was Steve Poizner who played the rich card on Meg.

I asked Meg is there were plans to spend up-words of $100 million to be the next governor, and whether she is an overspending.

The Poizner accusation is that Meg Whitman is nothing more than an over spender. Since she spent $1.2 billion on Skype as the eBay CEO, now she is self-funding while she spend millions inside of  the primary. Steve’s point: Meg is nothing more than a rich elitist who is trying to buy the race without answering the questions. I asked Meg about the charge that she is dodging confrontation and spending millions to buy votes and voters.

“We’re gearing up to win in the primary and then win in the general. We’re focused, very good strategy to do the things we need to do to win. I feel good about the way we’re spending our money. It’s effective.”

Although Meg corrected me on my figures a couple of times, it is obvious that she is willing to spend millions – many millions -to be the Republican’s nominee come June 2010. It might not be a surprise to see her bankroll reach $100 million by November 2010.

One final, fun download today; I was wondering what Meg thought about the recent homosexual bill that cleared the Capitol with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signature.

I asked her about the “Harvey Milk Day” legislation, and whether she would have signed it as governor.

“No, probably would not have. I just think you have to be thoughtful about the holidays you put in place and that wouldn’t had been the top of my list of things to get done. You only want to have a small number of holidays, and I think you have to be very careful about what one’s you put in place and that is not at the top of my list.”

Many readers my get hung-up on her use of the word “probably”, but I believe she would have vetoed this ridiculous piece of legislation, as would have Steve Poizner. I am certain Tom Campbell would have signed it into law as Arnold did. As for Meg’s comments; one thing stands out in her response – calling this day a “holiday”.

From the beginning the voters were told that “Harvey Milk Day” was ”not” a holiday, but a day of recognition for the first openly gay legislator in the state’s history. Something that our children will now study while they are attending school.

But who knows, it may become a holiday in the future. To hear Meg call it such means she knows more than she is letting on, or she has little understanding of the legislation in the first place. The later assumption is a welcomed conclusion, please.

To those who want to hear the complete 30-minute interview:

Meg discusses her campaign, hedge fund and charitable donation to EDF in segment one:

Meg discuss her campaign, declining payroll, debates, overspending and Harvey Milk Day in segment two: