The Company Meg Whitman Keeps…

February 4th, 2010 · 19 Comments

Many Latinos have heard that old saying, “Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres,” which means “Tell me who you walk with, and I will tell you who you are.” Essentially, one is known by the company she keeps.

Well a few days ago, I blogged about the racist element that has been associated with Meg Whitman’s campaign for California governor and how she is conveniently cozy with former governor Pete Wilson (aka Mr. Prop 187). Meg had to disavow a self-proclaimed “proud racist,” which you can see her do in this clip, but listen to how people at her event try to excuse the proud racist comment.

Meg should take it a step further and distance herself from those who are trying to excuse ‘proud racist’ comments and then distance herself from former Governor Pete Wilson. Last year, Whitman even praised Wilson as the greatest California governor in memory:

“At the same time, Whitman praised former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson for his role in the 1990s budget crisis. She said the tax hikes imposed by Wilson — whom she described as the greatest California governor in memory — made sense at the time, even if they would be inappropriate now.”

On the one hand, Meg Whitman wants us to listen to her at mariachi events where she praises Latinos for their entrepreneurial spirit, yet she conveniently leaves out her praise for former Governor Wilson. I wonder if she would try to play the mariachis for the people who were at the Hollywood Republicans event in North Hollywood (above). It is as if she panders to two different crowds and then expects us (the Latino voters) to not catch or notice these things.

Will the real Meg Whitman please stand up?

Tags: Immigration · racism

19 responses so far ↓

  • 1 HispanicPundit // Feb 4, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    I don’t agree with Whitman’s immigration views but neither do I agree that those who are against immigration are racist.

    Cesar Chavez, btw, was adamantly against illegal immigration…to the point of calling INS. Does that make him racist as well?

    Its a big pet peeve of mine to use the racist card so carelessly. It harms productive dialogue and in the end is a subtle form of censorship.

  • 2 webmaster // Feb 4, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    “Cesar Chavez, btw, was adamantly against illegal immigration…to the point of calling INS. Does that make him racist as well?”

    Cesar Chavez was not running for governor of one of the most diverse states in the nation. Yes, I understand that he did not favor illegal immigration, but I think that his views were evolving, as Gustavo Arellano (ask a Mexican) states here:

  • 3 HispanicPundit // Feb 4, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    You didn’t answer my question: What is racist about opposition to illegal immigration?

    Regarding Chavez, he didn’t just ‘disfavor’ illegal immigration…he and his cousin Manuel, petitioned the INS to have em deported. Manuel even went so far as to physically attack them. IOW, Chavez and his ilk make modern day minute men look like wimps.

    Sure, he might have toned down his ‘disfavor’ later, but that just meant he tolerated them (called the INS less?)…not in anyway favor them.

  • 4 webmaster // Feb 5, 2010 at 7:55 am

    On its face, opposing illegal immigration is not racist, but look at what it evolves into with the likes of Barbara Coe (a big backer of prop 187) saying things like “illegal barbarian” or insinuating the Villaraigosa is going to return LA to Mexico, etc.

    Again, you are comparing apples to oranges with Cesar Chavez and Meg Whitman. Chavez was trying to accomplish something specific with farm workers in the US.

  • 5 HispanicPundit // Feb 5, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    So let me get this straight, I show you that Cesar Chavez was himself against illegal immigration, contacted INS to deport as many immigrants as he could, surrounded himself with people who vehemently opposed it to the point of physical contact…and your response is to point to some insensitive comments by someone loosely connected to Meg Whitman???

    If you want to insinuate that Meg Whitman or opponents of illegal immigration are racist than you have no choice than to conclude that so was Cesar Chavez and for that matter the UFW. They were doing far more than anybody loosely connected to Meg Whitman has done.

    You write, you are comparing apples to oranges with Cesar Chavez and Meg Whitman. Chavez was trying to accomplish something specific with farm workers in the US… So what? Meg Whitman, I’m sure, assumes she is also trying to accomplish something good…why then does she not get the benefit of the doubt? Can’t people disagree with you and still believe they are doing the right thing?

    After all…it’s a known fact that Cesar Chavez left the UFW an abysmal failure. He marginally helped the current farm workers at the expense of much poorer immigrants and in the end accomplished little. This is why I have never really been a fan of Cesar Chavez. He is a fan of unions, sure, but not of the wellbeing of the common man. Just ask many of the immigrants that got deported because of him and his organization.

    If were going to throw the racist charge based merely by ones views on illegal immigrants, Cesar Chavez fits the bill far better than Meg Whitman.

  • 6 webmaster // Feb 5, 2010 at 8:54 pm

    “If were going to throw the racist charge based merely by ones views on illegal immigrants, Cesar Chavez fits the bill far better than Meg Whitman.”

    This post was not about Cesar Chavez, but I see where you are going with this. You want an excuse to bring up how Chavez may have felt about the undocumented thirty to forty years ago (you have done this before on other posts on other blogs, bringing up old, dead in his grave Cesar Chavez). I cannot imagine what he would think about illegal immigration now in its current context. But yes, I know that he was not a fan of the undocumented and did call the INS, etc. While we can’t speak for Cesar Chavez, I do want to note that “his union” is pushing for CIR and is not currently using the “prosecuting illegal alien” language:

    But back in May, Whitman said this, “we have to prosecute illegal aliens and criminal illegal aliens in all of our cities, in every part of California.”

  • 7 HispanicPundit // Feb 6, 2010 at 11:12 am

    My point, which you have refused to address and I have made several times now, is that being against illegal immigrants does not, ipso facto, make one a racist.

    I use Cesar Chavez only because I know you hold him dearly. It helps in pointing out your double standard.

    Like I said above, its a pet peeve of mine to have the race card thrown around so carelessly. It harms productive dialogue and in the end is a subtle form of censorship.

  • 8 webmaster // Feb 6, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    “I use Cesar Chavez only because I know you hold him dearly. It helps in pointing out your double standard.”

    I don’t hold him dearly. I don’t even think he should have a national holiday. Maybe you are confusing me with other bloggers.

    Look at what I said in the first sentence of post #4.

  • 9 WhatThe.. // Feb 6, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    I can see Meg Whitman’s postion in that in today’s “political correct” environment, one cannot say “proud racist”, even though It was metaphorically used. I don’t have a problem with the use of “proud racist”, due to the frustration of our politically correct society. I believe an ignorant and uneducated reponse would be to directly correlate his feeling to racism, therefore censoring any further debate. Now I don’t know councilman’s Keller’s history, this blog has stated he has a history of hateful remarks. Regardless, our politically correct society has continued to convolute the true meaning of many words. It appears that the term “racism” has began to have one acceptable use; to use the term as an attack, or when your position in a debate is unsubstantiated and can always be depended on as a sure fire “coud d’etat”. I believe are societies lack of critical and analytical thinking, due to our educational system, allows for this this unfortunate hysteria to brew. This only curtails any progress and only continues to deevolutionize our society. This is not the same thing as Vincente Fox stating the following, “There is no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work, are doing jobs that not even blacks won’t do there in the United States.” He is one that is known to make hateful remarks. As Latino’s we must also not forget that racism comes in all colors…

  • 10 Anna // Feb 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Whitman isn’t qualified to be Governor. She has no experience in goverment and no experience running anything as large as California. Sorry, but running an internet swapmeet doesn’t qualify.

    We have already had an amateur in office, and it has been a disaster, so let’s not go down that road again.

  • 11 What The.. // Feb 12, 2010 at 12:39 am

    Your right Anna, thank god we have our trusted crack experienced legislature keeping our state out of the red…

  • 12 Anna // Feb 12, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    The problem with the legislature is that it takes a 2/3 majority to get anything passed, which neither party has. They need to change the law to majority rule.

    That being said, the 2/3 rule has beenj there for a long time. It’s only Arnold who can’t work with it because he doesn’t know how to negotiate. He tries to rule by force, so of course he can’t get anything done. Rather than take responsibility, he launches a media campaign to blame it all on the legislature and to make California seem “ungovernable.” Anything will seem ungovernable if the Governor has no experience and doesn’t know what he’s doing!

    Whitman also has no experience, and I hope the people of this state aren’t dumb enough to vote for her. This state can’t take anymore incompetence.

  • 13 What The.. // Feb 14, 2010 at 12:02 am

    Yes Anna, the 2/3 majority vote conception was to prevent corruption.; and if I may say further corruption of what we have been experiencing in California, steming from the Union Cartels and Legislature, and with emphasis with the leglislature with prior union affilation or lobbyist affililation. Remember, the 2/3 majority was implemented as a check and balances, again to prevent corruption. And get over it, California is ungovernable because of the Union Cartels and the influence they have over their puppet legislature. The powers behind the politicians are the Union Cartels and Corporate Lobbisty. Incompetance, I don’t think so, this is what has been planned. Governor Arnold, the pathetic candidate for Lt. Governor, Abel Maldonado, not to mention the incompentant president ONada and former president Bush, are puppets for the power behind the illusion or our Democratic and Free Government….

  • 14 Anna // Feb 14, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    Unions are not the issue. That’s right wing propaganda. And let’s be clear who we mean by unions: firefighters, teachers, police officers, nurses, etc.

    Wall St wants to steal their pensions, so they have to make you think that public employees are the problem. They want you to forget about how Enron robbed billions of dollars from us and then backed the bogus recall election that gave us Arnold. They want you to forget about Countywide of Orange County and the fradulent loans. They want you to forget how these wars are draining the states of their wealth. They want you to forget about TARP and the billions of tax dollars Wall St. is still stealing.

    Oh, but it’s the unions.

    Turn off talk radio. Your head is filled with disinformation and propaganda.

  • 15 Cesar // Feb 23, 2010 at 10:35 pm

    This whole website appears to be racist. La raza to you too.

  • 16 RAMON // Mar 4, 2010 at 9:02 am

    It looks as if California’s gubernatorial race is shaping up to be Prop. 187, Part II. Steve Poizner is trying to fashion himself as the son of pito wilson and invoking the name of Ronald Reagan. Chingao, I thought that old man had died years ago. Meg Whitman is already running TV ads denouncing “illegal immigrants”. Babacoa (aka Barbara Coe) and pito wilson seem to working behind the scenes. Ponganse trucha, Raza!!!

  • 17 John Meyers // May 21, 2010 at 11:18 am

    I’m against this “criminal invasion” of the U.S. and I don’t trust Meg Whitman one bit! Sure, she claims to be against illegal immigration now, but that’s not what she said before. I’ve seen a video of her saying, “why can’t we just have a fair system where they (illegal aliens) can pay a fine and get at the back of the line?” (all the while maintaining a nonchalant, whiny tone of voice indicating that she doesn’t care because she lives in a mansion and thus will never have to deal with the realities of illegal immigration). Well, I’ve got news for you Meg, those people are never going to pay shit!!!

    And how can the idiot proponents of Immigration Reform (i.e. amnesty) not understand the rampant hypocrisy of Mexico?
    Do any of you morons even know what Mexico’s immigration policy is? It’s a policy of zero tolerance for “their” illegal aliens! In fact, the Mexican Federales can stop anyone, at any time, and ask them to produce their (dreaded) “papers.” So, it’s OK for Mexico to defend their borders but it’s not OK for the U.S. to do the same (and stop our illegal invasion)?
    And what’s with Libtards always calling amnesty immigration reform, when it’s actually “transformation”?

    And if the Arizona law is (as Liberals claim) akin to Nazi Germany, then where does that put Mexico’s immigration law? Well, going by that warped logic, I’d have to say their immigration law is more akin to that of Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky (the Jewish Russian Czars who killed far more than Hitler (100 million innocent people).

    Furthermore, these illegals are only being used by the Global Elite to Divide & Conquer the American citizens (while letting them think that their re-conquering the American Southwest). And once they have served their purpose, the Elite will wipe them out with a bio-weapon so fast, that they won’t even have time to digest their last carne asada!

  • 18 Wonk Room » An Immigration Platform That Meg Whitman May Live to Regret // Jun 9, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    […] Latino Politics blog points out that Latinos have a saying: “Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres,” which means “Tell […]

  • 19 Cesar // Jun 27, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    Do Latinos put race above country?

Leave a Comment