Jerry Brown was caught on audio agreeing with an aide who called Meg Whitman a “whore.” (Audio below at 1:55)
Understandably, all the attention is focused on the “whore” comment. But there was another Brown insult which has not received any attention.
Beginning at 3:10 of the audio, Brown and his aides begin a discussion of Whitman’s proposed budget cuts. A female voice says “Yeah, Jerry, we’ve got to focus on the police chiefs, we got to get them [inaudible].” Another female voice in the background says “[Inaudible] I just want to make sure we talk about this.” Brown then says (at 3:20):
“I’m going to hit that out of the park, not that they read.”
Compared to calling one of the most successful businesswomen in American history and a nominee for Senate Governor a “whore,” mocking whether the police chiefs read is not as sensational.
Nonetheless, if I were a policeman in California, I’d be pretty upset with Brown’s snide and demeaning comment, which evidences a lack of respect.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzjgqXXGVmc?fs=1]
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
True colors shining through…
Ah, if people only knew what liberals/democrats said behind close doors and how they really feel nobody would vote for them.
Umm. Nominee for California governor, not Senate. The Republican Senate candidate would be Carly.
Your point stands, though. Sounds like a commercial to me. Talk about hitting it out of the park….
@nukemhill – thanks for the catch. corrected.
How funny…..wasn't the message he left on the machine to a police union guy? Wasn't the whole point of this to get the police to support him? Is he a "Valley guy"?!?!
Gee, Jerry Moonbeam. You're so, like, uh, brilliant, man. Maybe, like, you can, like, totally forget that support-thingy, man, for sure. Like. Totally.
Moonbeam Brown has quite the nerve. Anyone who has made their way in life as a politician and the son of a politician for the past 40 years or so like he has has prostituted himself out far more often and for more special interests than just about anyone.
California is lost for 2010. I don't know anyone, Democrat or Republican, who is not embarrassed with their party's candidate. Whitman is not worth wasting your time on professor. She is cutting back room deals with the unions and will become the latest GOP embarrassment (if she wins).
Her showcase programs involve investing a billion dollars into the CA university system funded by "cutting fraud and waste" out of welfare spending. Wow. Meanwhile she is both for AND against illegal immigration depending on what language you speak.
You cannot save CA without drastically reforming the government employee union pensions and she is obviously going to dance around that.
If you really want to help the cause, spend more time illuminating how the GOP destroyed CA. It would also illuminate why CA is not a lost cause. Reform the CA GOP establishment and suddenly, real Republicans, the ones that we Californians want, can win big.
Mark Levin has it all wrong arguing that electing Whitman and Fiorina matters. It doesn't. California was winnable for conservatives until McPalin sealed the deal for the establishment GOP and quashed the campaign of the only true conservative running this year, Chuck Devore. THAT would have made CA a winnable battleground with broad national implications. Now it is just another blown opportunity as we focus on small states like MA, AK and DE. The entire "conservative" media is now telling us to hold our noses to elect two Mike Castles. Good grief. Let's move on already.
"Snide and demeaning", two apt attributes for almost any situation involving the Progressive left.
Try it yourself! It's fun!
Think of any current issue, policy, controversy, etc involving the left. Now, try to think of two words to describe the leftist's attitude, excuse, rationale towards that subject
Times up!
Yes, snide and demeaning is the correct answer.
"We" @ http://heir2freedom.blogspot.com/
pasadenaphil wrote: **************************************
If you really want to help the cause, spend more time illuminating how the GOP destroyed CA. It would also illuminate why CA is not a lost cause. Reform the CA GOP establishment and suddenly, real Republicans, the ones that we Californians want, can win big.
**************************************
Judging from your comment, I think we both would have preferred Tom McClintock as Governor over Ahnuld Schwarzenkennedy. So did you similarly ask Dubya Tee Eff when McClintock endorsed career chameleon Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner over Whitman?
**************************************
California was winnable for conservatives until McPalin sealed the deal for the establishment GOP and quashed the campaign of the only true conservative running this year, Chuck Devore.
**************************************
It's ridiculous that you concluded "Good grief. Let's move on already" after bemoaning Chuck DeVore. That ship has sailed, Phil — how long are you going to be on the harbor crying? In having these two barely conservative women as the alternative to old school big government liberals, Californians may only have these choices: Slowing the septic tank leak, not slowing the leak, or moving out of the house.
So, Meg sold out to the police unions? My respect for her just dropped enormously. It's possible she's just another political hack, selling out the public to the entrenched unions in exchange for enough votes to win.
She's down by 3% now. I guess she'll have to sell out to another union.
This should put to rest any notion that feminist on the left actually want progress for women. The don't and their credibility is entirely shot now. They didn't even bother to check his record! Hope Brown was worth it.
Brown and company are elite leftists. Of course they have contempt for the police. How many cops graduated from the Ivy League?
There hasn't been a Democrat since Harry Truman who gave a damn about ordinary Americans.
There are two steps to an election: primary and general. In both cases, people should vote for the best candidate, which should be for everyone here the most conservative candidate. If your candidate loses in the primary, you then back the best candidate in the general, which for conservatives in every election in memory has been the Republican over the Democrat.
What it boils down to for conservatives is to fight the good fight in the primary and then man up and vote for the Republican in the general. It's really not that hard.
The other option is to whine. And moan. And rail about how Palin ruined things. How those darned t-folks messed up your state. How DeVore would have saved the Union.
But seriously, at this point, less than four weeks from the election, ANYONE who is continuing to gripe about Republican candidates is simply providing succor to the enemy. Sicne the primary is done, the time to address these issues is gone. You can revisit them again after the election, when you can try to hold their feet to the fire and/or groom a challenger.
Right now you either vote for Whitman or by not voting you vote for Brown. Simple.
Jerry is starting to rival Joe Biden as a "gaffe machine".
Is Jerry Brown attempting to outdo John Kerry?
(Remember that Kerry insinuated something very similar regarding those who serve(d) our country in Iraq.)
Jerry Brown, the noted ex-Jesuit seminarian, one steeped in "Ignatian indifference", allowed a close aide to say such thing to a lady political rival and instead of rebuking confirming it?
Not good, Sir! Even in private conversations.
Prof. Jacobson:
If elected, Meg Whitman is going to be Arnie in a dress; I think everyone realizes that even if some are too corrupt to say it out loud.
So, which of these is better for you?
1. Meg wins. You don't like her policies (spending), and I don't like her policies (immig.) In fact, few Californians like her policies. However, the GOP supports her, muting your concerns and mine. Not only that, but the Dems somewhat support her too on those same policies. And, her win encourages the GOP to nominate other people like her.
Or:
2. Brown wins. You can strongly oppose him (on spending) and I can strongly oppose him (on immig.) and we can probably block him from doing more harm than he could. And, the GOP isn't encouraged to select more Megs. And, not only that, but the GOP opposes him too.
Which is better?
That question isn't for the teaparty types; it's too complex. It's just for Jacobson, and it'd be great if he could think it through and give an answer.
hotsopdotcom wrote:
"That question isn't for the teaparty types; it's too complex. It's just for Jacobson, and it'd be great if he could think it through and give an answer."
Uh huh. Not like "tea party types" read, right?
Apparently, the question is too complex for you as well, or you wouldn't be asking Prof. Jacobson's opinion, would you?
You seem to be recommending that we vote FOR Brown. Because electing Whitman will cause ever worse candidates to be elected in the future. Because voting for the best that we've got means we won't try to get better.
Yup, TEA partiers for sure can't handle that much nuance! I mean, we confuse easily: are we idiots who screw up the GOP's chances by going off the reservation for ultra-conservatives (Delaware) or are we RINO shills for the GOP establishment (California)?
I don't suppose it's as simple as maybe we just vote our conscience and then do the best with the cards we have. No, we need more nuance!!!
((sigh))
If you don't like Whitman, get your ducks in a row and primary her out in four years. If you're saying that Whitman winning this election lessens your ability to field a qualified candidate in 2014, then that speaks more about your (lack of) organizational skills than anything else.
Relax and enjoy the tsunami. Because if you think about it this isn't the election that counts. It's important, but the real test comes in 2012. That's when we see if we have the fortitude to hold our representatives' collective feet to the fire and vote out the ones we just voted in if they shirk their duty.
How's THAT for nuance? 🙂
for heaven's sake..surely brown and his aide meant that whitman is a political whore, not that she turns tricks.
I'm going to vote for Whitman as an independent. I'm tired of Brown's 40 yrs of sleaze politics.
Even a Republican-in-name-only is better than an idiotic political prostitute like Brownie. Whatever deals Whitman made, Brown has made far more, bigger, more destructive ones. How much worse can Whitman be? Sounds to me like she has got at least some common sense, unlike the D-rat's dupe. Who knows, Whitman might have the guts to actually do something positive. If not, okay, the 'Rats have ruined California anyway.