I am old enough to remember the days when the private revelations from the Richard Nixon White House became public. In private, President Nixon often stated that he did not want the complete facts on many things, so that in public he could maintain "deniability." He would ask his aides, "Do we have deniability on that?"
California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman claims deniability on the immigration status of her housekeeper, Nicky Diaz Santillian, who is fighting deportation because she has been an illegal alien in this country for many years. Of course, Ms. Diaz was Ms. Whitman's housekeeper for nine years.
Well before Whitman hired Ms. Diaz, the immigration and withholding status of Central and South American nannys and housekeepers had became front-page news. We had nanny-gates with regard to several Clinton attorney general nominations. I remember that Judge Kimba Woods and Zoe Baird were in the headlines, along with their illegal nannies and housekeepers. But Whitman maintains deniability on what the Woods, Baird and other cases show to have been a high-profile issue for many years now.
In fact, Whitman points the finger at her opponent, California Attorney General Jerry Brown: "Jerry, you should be ashamed. You put her deportation at risk. You put her out there. You should be ashamed of sacrificing Nicky Diaz on the altar of your political ambitions," Whitman said in a televised debate at Cal State Fresno.
Those comments escalate Whitman beyond deniability (which seems implausible, given the nine year time span during which she employed Diaz). The newest Whitman debate tactic seems a jump shift from deniability to finger pointing. The two (deniability plus finger pointing) are not mutually exclusive, of course.
Ex-CEO Whitman has, of course, done this before. In 2002-2004, Whitman received preferential shares in technology and other hot issue offerings, likely to shoot up in price, assuring Whitman that she would reap handsome profits. Even though Goldman Sachs allocated shares to Whitman more than 100 times, she denied any knowledge of the illegal "spinning." Spinning is wrongful because it is the company, eBay in this case, not its CEO, that owns the right to award future investment banking business to Goldman Sachs and the like.
Whitman's claims of deniability in the spinning case seem as weak as her deniability claims in the illegal housekeeper case. Whitman received Goldman Sachs statements for 36-48 months. The statements clearly showed the illegal allocations to her investment account. After being sued, Whitman tacitly admitted her fault, disgorging several million dollars in illicit profits.
In that case, too, Whitman escalated from deniability to finger pointing. She and her supporters said that, if they can be shown to have known of the allocations, they did not know it was illegal. No SEC regulations prohibited the practice or even were on point.
Of course, the SEC does not have regulations on most things in the corporate-securities world. Common sense and basic morality would tell you that spinning amounted to usurpation of a corporate opportunity and, based upon general principles and ordinary morality, it is wrongful.
So we have two less edifying characteristics possessed by Ms. Whitman: deniability and finger pointing. Opponent Brown said to Whitman: "You have blamed her [Ms. Diaz]; blamed me; blamed the left; blamed the unions. You don't take accountability."
During her years as CEO of eBay, subordinates referred to Meg Whitman as "Golden Girl," based upon the unstinting progress the company made in the 10 years she was there. But the Golden Girl stuff may have gone to her head.
Meg Whitman may be convinced that she doesn't know, and has no responsibility for knowing of matters to which she has chosen to turn a blind eye. Further, she seems practiced in the art of shifting from the art of deniability to finger pointing. If a case can be made out that she knew, or should have known, well, then it's not her fault. It's Goldman Sachs', or Jerry Brown's, or the liberals', or the labor unions', or the Left.
William Bradley: Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, and the Dust That Won't Settle
That's the only way she can reconcile the obvious. He's slime. She would probably not support the teacher's union benefits, etc., so my friend.........will stay home.
She's not showing up. Out of protest.
M. Whitman to ex-housekeeper
This isn't an innocent or ignorant utterance. It is conspiract to deceive.
What qualities does this person display that qualify her to be governor of a very troubled state?
1. She's very rich (less so since the campaign).
2. She's an accomplished liar.
3. She's a cheapskate.
4. She treats underlings badly.
5. She has never voted.
What have the Republicans been drinking? Even worse, what is the voting public thinking to even consider voting for this Clown Show? Tea Partiers, reactionary ideologues and plutocrats. Elect them and the government will indeed become the problem.
“There's a new front page article on the San Francisco Chronicle about Nicky inspiring a statewide movement to end exploitation of people in her situation. The Latinos are out to get Goliath Meg!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/10/MN161FQC2U.DTL"
"Whitman's ex-maid emerges as symbol
From San Francisco to Los Angeles this week, undocumented domestic and farm workers - some of them holding signs proclaiming "I am Nicky" - held demonstrations to express solidarity with Diaz. They said her statement that Whitman was "throwing me away like a piece of garbage" when she asked for help becoming a legal citizen made her the face of a new movement for the workplace rights of the undocumented.
'A national symbol'
"She is becoming a national symbol," said labor leader Dolores Huerta, co-founder with Cesar Chavez of the United Farm Workers. Huerta called Diaz's actions courageous and said her story could be a catalyst for reform at the state and national levels.
Immigrant rights activist Nativo Lopez, president of the Mexican American Political Association, said, "Nicky has become the David in the campaign of Goliath - and, I believe, will ultimately be the demise of Meg Whitman."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/10/MN161FQC2U.DTL"
that you would certainly be expected to do as GOVERNOR? Your historical decision speaks volumes about what you would really do.
But Whitman is even worse than careless. She is utterly irresponsible and ruthless. After nine years Whitman sacrificed a main caregiver of her child without thought of what this might do to the child. Can you imagine! "Child, mommie has to remove your caregiver of 9 years whom you love because mommie wants to be governor!"
I find Meg Whitman one of the most disgusting people ever to cross the political sky and that is saying a lot.
The other thing is that she never bothered to check Nicky's driver's license and insurance. She was driving her kids for 9 years! Careless and bad mother at least!
Our 2 votes for Jerry are in the mail!
I'm not saying this to defend her, as I think her actions are indefensible, just trying to keep it factual.
No one stops and say this is a good trend for the nation when you have the largest amount of female candidates every to run for state, local, and national offices in our history. It makes you wonder why the left and the progressives is still run by the good old boys club. Look at your leaders in your own party and movement most of them are white, and most of them are males. But you attack the teaparty as being monochromatic, I call that hypocrisy.
but go on smokin' that pipe the dreams must please you.
Sorry - that's a swing - and a miss. Or should I say Ms...
On environmental protection, she's just as slippery. She claims to oppose proposition 23 AND AB 32. That's not a nuanced position, and it's not changing her mind since she claims both positions simultaneously. It's just a plain contradiction, a refusal to take responsibility for losing votes on either side of the issue.
Fanned and faved.
then refuse to comment. Best legal advice money can buy.
Draft dodger? - blame the war hero.
Drunk? - blame the responsible user of alcohol.
But let's watch, how much money could reject The Truth, the Moral and Common sense.