06/20/2010 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

Meg Whitman's Goldman Sachs Insurance Pays Off

Meg Whitman has a lot of money. She's mostly spent it on television advertising, and mailing half a million people a 48-page magazine about herself, but a few months ago there was a squalid mini-scandal when she used $20,000 to secretly buy off a conservative website called "Red County."

Meg paid $20,000 for $300 worth of advertising on "Red County." She cut the check a week after they fired a blogger who was secretly being paid $2,500 a month by Steve Poizner. This, of course, was exactly what Madison was hoping would happen when he came up with freedom of the press.

No one cared much at the time, because no one has ever read "Red County," except fans of communist pornography who sometimes add "o" to words by accident.

This week Meg Whitman is in a certain amount of trouble because Goldman Sachs is in the news -- and not in a good way -- and Meg was once shit-canned off their board for taking bribes. From them. It's complicated.

And this is where the twenty grand paid off. By complete and total coincidence, the tireless truth tellers of "Red County" have rushed to Meg's defense.

Here's what that kind of money buys:

Desperate and Pathetic Swing at Meg Whitman over Goldman Sachs

I have become so disinterested in the California Gubernatorial race that it is tough to spend any time writing about it.

I think he means "uninterested."

No matter who I vote for it is only going to be a "not Jerry Brown" vote, and that is sad. I wish I did not have to pick a candidate who lambasts


school choice and creative market-driven ideas for fixing the debacle of a public school system we have here in California (Meg Whitman). But Meg will get my vote in November, and her imminent primary victory is

... will...


... be...

helped by the embarrassing press release from the Poizner campaign over the weekend blasting Meg Whitman for her connections to Goldman Sachs. Really? Steve Poizner is now a raging populist, filled with

... anti-...

Wall Street angst,

Not really a synonym for "anger."

ready to demonize the evil money guys of the wicked east coast?? Puuuhllleeeeeeeze.

This gem of a press release denounces Whitman for being on Goldman's board in 2001. Of course, being on the board of Goldman Sachs is an impressive resume-booster if you ask any sensible person, which means if you ask someone

... who's...

not running for political office. Poizner's release endorses an absurd op-ed from California Watch which


denounces Meg for "steering" millions of dollars of her company's investment bank business to EBAY, which is a lot like denouncing someone for "steering" their dining decisions to Morton's.

He's confused, and not just by the difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive clause. Meg didn't pay over a million dollars to settle a lawsuit for steering Goldman's business to EBay. That's idiotic. Unless they were buying a PEZ dispenser. She was steering eBay's business to Goldman Sachs.

Sometimes, really good companies don't have business "steered" to them; they have business "come to them because they are super duper good at what they do" (as Goldman Sachs unquestionably is). The release then goes on to demonize Meg for keeping her funds at Goldman Sachs, which is pretty impressive to me actually, since they are really picky about who


they will work with. Suffice it to say, Steve Poizner does not have his vast fortunes in his piggy bank, if you know what I mean.

Only vaguely. And if we don't know what you meant, then what you said didn't suffice.

This press release attempts to allege

... that there will be...

future "conflicts", but does nothing to substantiate such nonsense. I like Steve. I have given money to Steve. I had once planned to vote for Steve. But if his campaign is trying to exploite


voter ignorance about who


Goldman Sachs really is, and if his campaign thinks it is morally acceptable to try and tap into populist rage, then I suggest he run as a Democrat.

This kind of class envy and putrid guilt-by-association has no place in the party of free enterpise.


At least when Jerry Brown does it, he actually means it.

In short, nothing to see here. Meg didn't do anything wrong and if she did everyone does it and you would too and even if you wouldn't it's class warfare to bring it up the preceding has been a paid political announcement from Meg 2010.

Where's my check?