
I just spoke to Jarrod Agen, the communications director for California state Insurance Commissioner and current Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner, and he sharply criticized rival Meg Whitman for having donated to liberal Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer in 2003.
"Well, the issue is that Meg Whitman did not vote for 28 years, and then her initial foray into politics was to support Barbara Boxer," said Agen. "And it is hypocritical of her to campaign as a 'darned good Republican' throughout California with a record that would suggest something very much the opposite."
However, Poizner may have his own problem that Whitman could attack, if this fight keeps up: In 2000, he wrote checks to Al Gore. The explanation here was that the donations came from a joint checking account, and that Poizner's wife is a Democrat.
"Back in 2000, Al Gore had come to California for a couple of separate events. Commissioner Poizner's wife wanted to go see Gore at those events, so they went to go see them," Agen explained.
So this means that Poizner wrote the checks, but in spirit it was really his wife making the donation? "Well yeah, it was his wife who wanted to see Gore at these events, when he came to their area. So they attended the fundraisers. But because they had a joint checking account, it was Steve who was the one who wrote and signed the checks."
So if it was really his wife who was truly making the donation, and not Poizner himself, why didn't his wife write the checks herself? Agen answered: "Because it was -- he was the one who, if any political donation was made at the time, he was the one who was handling those."
ejg3
October 5, 2009 7:11 PM
Looks like a choice between dereliction of duty (not voting for years by Whitman) and a Ponzer scheme (the campaign contribution ploy of the dog ate my homework). Ponzer's someone else writing the check is sort of a watered down version of Ensign's parents $96,000 gifts to the family of his paramour. Once again the task of following the money comes up with fouled money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
October 5, 2009 7:22 PM
Pozner is in better shape. He can play it off just like Arnold did with this whole "my wife's a Dem" defense. Whitman makes herself look like she doesn't know where she's spending her money, or more importantly to the political landscape, doesn't know what she's supporting with her money. That and her strange "I'm too busy being a mom" defense just doesn't jive when compared to her meteoric career in the Silicon Valley.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
October 5, 2009 7:54 PM
Meg's a hag
Poizner in a walk
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
October 6, 2009 12:44 AM
No woman who wears as little makeup as Meg Whitman (no eyebrows, no eyelashes? Even MEN would use makeup) will ever be elected to anything.
Calling Carmody!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
October 6, 2009 12:47 AM
Wait a minute. Poizner's excuse is the HE writes the checks? Excuse me, but if YOU don't want to make a contribution, there's an easy method: Let Your Wife Sign the Check!!! Doofus.
AND to not do that makes you look like a MCP anyway. Lose lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
2scoops
October 6, 2009 6:02 AM in reply to Cal Gal
Too right Cal Gal.
And these two are running for what? Where?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fsudirectory
October 6, 2009 7:09 AM
Meg and Carly are both flops and left their respective companies a few years ago where California is today. Idk much about this pozner guy but he doesn't seem to exude much usefulness to me either
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?