Meg Whitman vs. the Dirty Tricks of the Brown Campaign

Patricia McCarthy
Do Californians, native born and immigrant, possess critical thinking skills? I hope so. A close election for Governor of the state seems to have brought out the worst in our political class. An entirely fabricated scandal is now national news.

The facts are pretty clear. Wealthy family hires a maid through a respectable agency that guarantees their prospective employees have been certified to be legal citizens. Family also asks for and receives said documentation: California driver's license and social security number. Employee is paid $23 an hour.

A few years go by. Family receives letter from Social Security Administration questioning inconsistencies between social security number and name. Said letter states that the query cannot be used to instigate firing or investigation of said employee, stresses that the inquiry is clerical in nature. Husband of family gives letter to employee with note that she should "clear this up."

Six years pass. Employee admits to family she actually is not in the country legally. All documentation produced was forged or stolen. Family, wife about to run for Governor, regrets but knows they must fire employee in order to be in accordance with the law.

One month before election, odious and notorious publicity-hound lawyer, undoubtedly engaged by opponent's campaign, also a proud radical rabble-rouser, creates a scandal by accusing gubernatorial candidate of lying about knowledge of employee's immigration status. Said lawyer files a complaint, not a lawsuit, claiming that the employee is owed money for mileage driven while employee worked for said family. Underlying accusation? Family knew all along that employee was illegal, fired her because of gubernatorial run, should not have fired deceitful employee but should have instead used their wealth and power to facilitate her legal citizenship. Family very bad. Deceitful employee good.

Fact: Whitman's family followed the law to the very best of their ability and responsibility.

Fact: Employee lied repeatedly, forged documentation, stole and used another's citizen's identity. Turn's on family that treated her kindly and paid her well.

Just who is the victim here?

Could the picture be any clearer? Vile and loathsome campaign stunts are the stock in trade of the left. Only Alan Grayson has stooped lower than Brown during this cycle. And yet this manufactured scandal seems to have hurt Whitman in the polls. How can this be? Is it possible that California voters are incapable of seeing the Allred/Van Der Hout/Brown exploitation for what it is? A reprehensible dirty trick to harm a political opponent who has the upper hand. Jerry Brown did irreparable harm to California when he was Governor from 1975 to 1983. Like our current administration, he spent, spent, and spent taxpayer dollars, more than existed then or now.

No Californian who remembers his catastrophic, budget-busting reign would ever vote for him again. So it appears that the Brown campaign is hoping to trick the Hispanics of California, whom they believe to be too ignorant to grasp the contemptible nature of this stunt, into putting him in office. I think our Hispanic voters are much smarter than the Brown campaign believes them to be. They know an inept scoundrel when they see him.

Wishful thinking on my part? Perhaps. But like many thousands of other Californians, if Brown wins, my family will have to flee the state. He will further damage the state's economy by raising our taxes (do not believe his ads to the contrary) and promising the public unions his undying devotion. The state will not survive. This will hurt our immigrants, legal and illegal, infinitely more than Meg Whitman's ignorance of her well-paid maid's status.

Do Californians, native born and immigrant, possess critical thinking skills? I hope so. A close election for Governor of the state seems to have brought out the worst in our political class. An entirely fabricated scandal is now national news.

The facts are pretty clear. Wealthy family hires a maid through a respectable agency that guarantees their prospective employees have been certified to be legal citizens. Family also asks for and receives said documentation: California driver's license and social security number. Employee is paid $23 an hour.

A few years go by. Family receives letter from Social Security Administration questioning inconsistencies between social security number and name. Said letter states that the query cannot be used to instigate firing or investigation of said employee, stresses that the inquiry is clerical in nature. Husband of family gives letter to employee with note that she should "clear this up."

Six years pass. Employee admits to family she actually is not in the country legally. All documentation produced was forged or stolen. Family, wife about to run for Governor, regrets but knows they must fire employee in order to be in accordance with the law.

One month before election, odious and notorious publicity-hound lawyer, undoubtedly engaged by opponent's campaign, also a proud radical rabble-rouser, creates a scandal by accusing gubernatorial candidate of lying about knowledge of employee's immigration status. Said lawyer files a complaint, not a lawsuit, claiming that the employee is owed money for mileage driven while employee worked for said family. Underlying accusation? Family knew all along that employee was illegal, fired her because of gubernatorial run, should not have fired deceitful employee but should have instead used their wealth and power to facilitate her legal citizenship. Family very bad. Deceitful employee good.

Fact: Whitman's family followed the law to the very best of their ability and responsibility.

Fact: Employee lied repeatedly, forged documentation, stole and used another's citizen's identity. Turn's on family that treated her kindly and paid her well.

Just who is the victim here?

Could the picture be any clearer? Vile and loathsome campaign stunts are the stock in trade of the left. Only Alan Grayson has stooped lower than Brown during this cycle. And yet this manufactured scandal seems to have hurt Whitman in the polls. How can this be? Is it possible that California voters are incapable of seeing the Allred/Van Der Hout/Brown exploitation for what it is? A reprehensible dirty trick to harm a political opponent who has the upper hand. Jerry Brown did irreparable harm to California when he was Governor from 1975 to 1983. Like our current administration, he spent, spent, and spent taxpayer dollars, more than existed then or now.

No Californian who remembers his catastrophic, budget-busting reign would ever vote for him again. So it appears that the Brown campaign is hoping to trick the Hispanics of California, whom they believe to be too ignorant to grasp the contemptible nature of this stunt, into putting him in office. I think our Hispanic voters are much smarter than the Brown campaign believes them to be. They know an inept scoundrel when they see him.

Wishful thinking on my part? Perhaps. But like many thousands of other Californians, if Brown wins, my family will have to flee the state. He will further damage the state's economy by raising our taxes (do not believe his ads to the contrary) and promising the public unions his undying devotion. The state will not survive. This will hurt our immigrants, legal and illegal, infinitely more than Meg Whitman's ignorance of her well-paid maid's status.