Local Blogs

Nose Under the Community Tent

By Paul Losch

E-mail Paul Losch

About this blog: I was a "corporate brat" growing up and lived in different parts of the country, ending in Houston, Texas for high school. After attending college at UC Davis, and getting an MBA at Harvard, I embarked on a marketing career, mai...  (More)

View all posts from Paul Losch

Incredibly Flawed Senate and Governor Candidates

Uploaded: Sep 30, 2010
I am increasingly disgusted with the character of candidates for State office in California, to whit:

I really have no clue what Senator Barbara Boxer has to show for all her time in Washington, DC.

Jerry Brown was a complete flake as California Governor some 30+ years ago. And he is bragging about it now that he is running again for the same office. What BS.

Meg Whitman is very smart, has been branding herself and talking about her "plan" as if it was like running a brand. Meg has said little or nothing about her "plan" and how it works with a State Assembly and State Senate.

And then today this immigration question came up about a nanny that worked in her household for a number of years. I pass no judgment at this point about the claims of Meg or Meg's nanny, but there clearly are suspicions' that Meg looked the other way for 9 years, in a manner inconsistent with what she has pronounced about immigration policy.

Carly Fiorinia "could not help but think" that Senator Boxer was beholden to certain interest groups. When last night's debate moderator asked Carly to name Barbara's interest groups, she was vague, and specified no entities. Twice. Her campaign was asked the same question today, and could not provide specifics.

The Lt. Gov. candidates both seem OK, but they don't do anything.

Comments

 +  Like this comment
Posted by Resident, a resident of ,
on Sep 30, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Paul

I am not making any comment about Meg Whitman, but I am completely suspicious of anything Gloria Allred is involved in.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Sep 30, 2010 at 7:02 pm

"And then today this immigration question came up about a nanny that worked in her household for a number of years. I pass no judgment at this point about the claims of Meg or Meg's nanny, but there clearly are suspicions' that Meg looked the other way for 9 years"

Paul, really!!

You are on the PA Parks and Rec. Commission, and you KNOW that illegals are being used to take care of our parks.

Who are you to criticize Meg? Look into your own mirror!!! Have you demanded that E-Verify be used on all PA hires, especially when outside contractors are being used?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by letter, a resident of ,
on Sep 30, 2010 at 7:03 pm

According to conservative talk radio, the letter from Social Security officials indicated that the receiver of the letter would be breaking the law by doing anything that worked against the subject of the letter. Apparently, in California this extends to doing special investigation on the subject.

If this is true, wtf is an employer supposed to do, given documents supporting legality and such a letter?

Also, I am wondering, were social security and other taxes and insurance obligations being met? If not, Meg's a real piece of work.

Yet, I think in the virtual world of spin Meg is spewing, her action on learning about the lack of documentation was exemplary. Don't call ICE and ruin the woman's life; terminate the employment immediately.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of ,
on Sep 30, 2010 at 9:05 pm

I never agree with Paul Losch - we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

I do agree with him on this one though, which leads me to the conclusion that California is in deep, deep _____ (fill in the expletive)...


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Midtowner, a resident of ,
on Sep 30, 2010 at 10:28 pm

Who would vote for Meg Whitman anyway? Can anyone vote for a candidate who never even bothered to vote until (s)he became a candidate for governor??


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Liar, liar, pants on fire, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 6:26 am

"According to conservative talk radio,"

Well, if you are going to believe them....

anyway, Whitman initially said she received no letter from Social Security--now it appears there was a letter and her husmand "may" have written on it.
(Web Link)

Whitman is a liar.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Even more, Meg for me, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 7:34 am

Try reading the actual letter Whitmans got..then tell me that she "lied". Of course, that is if you can find a copy of it anywhere. I heard it read out loud WITH ALRED on the phone with Mark Levin.

The letter from the IRS never said the employee was illegal or undocumented, just asked for more documentation, and furhtermore was quite clear that if the Whitmans took any "adverse action" there could be consequences.

So, what are we to do?

1) Clearly, this employee lied to the Employment Agency the Whitmans trusted to vet the employee. Then the employee lied to the Whitmans, showing them a false Social Security Card with a fake number. Then she stayed with the Whitmans for 9 years ...and now we are supposed to believe ANYTHING she says? hmm

2) The Whitmans actually paid social security etc taxes on their housekeeper ( how many of you just pay cash under the table,, hmm?), which is the only reason they got the IRS letter in the first place,..wondering what number it was.

3) Then the Whitmans were stuck.."adverse consequences" if fire her?

This is a typical Allred dog and pony show, she hasn't been on TV enough.

In fact, some questions come to mind

1) Who is Alred representing? The client she has now publicly declared a perjuror and illegally here and subjected her to prosecution and deportation ( what a joke that is, of course, since our Feds actively prevent following immigratioon law)

2) If not the housekeeper ( clearly not, since she is now widely exposed)...who?

3) Who paid Alred?

This stinks, and just makes me like Meg even more for even trying to follow the law by going through an Agency, and paying stupid taxes like she was supposed to do.

And, unknowingly to the left, it makes people support e-verify EVEN MORE...if I hire someone and years later I am liable after going through an Agency and LOOKING AT A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD..then give me e-verify,...takes me off the hook of being forced to hire a private investigator on every housekeeper, babysitter and yard worker I hire.

I can't wait for this to backfire..and backfire it will. Even a semi-reasonable person would ask themselves: Why on earth would Meg Whitman jeapordize a campaign financed with so much of her OWN time and money over this with a "lie"?? The answer is, she wouldn't. Let's hope most Californians see this for what it is, typical dirty, dirty, dirty politics.

Bottom line, anyone who would vote for Brown because of this, would have voted for Brown anyway. Brown has a n 8 year proven record of failure, whose policies we are STILL feeling the effects of in our infrastructure and energy

Last: Wonder where all the illegals are in Brown's closet? Being paid to keep quiet? Bet Meg can out pay whatever is being paid. Will she?



 +  Like this comment
Posted by Liar, liar, pants on fire, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 7:50 am

"Try reading the actual letter Whitmans got..then tell me that she "lied". Of course, that is if you can find a copy of it anywhere. I heard it read out loud WITH ALRED on the phone with Mark Levin."

Go to this website:
Web Link

and you will see a link where you can download a PDf of the document with Whitman's husband's writing on it.

And even more Meg for me, you can go to this link and see where conservative groups are calling for Whitman's arrest!!!!

Web Link


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Chris, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 8:21 am

You are very opinionated about the candidates--I suppose you could do a better job. Why don't you run instead of criticizing the public servants who have worked all their lives? The other two are newbies who see from the perspective of the very wealthy. Ordinary working people are just peons to them. They'll be working on the side of the rich.

About the nanny--her English is so poor that I would have been suspicious of her status at the least. They tried to say she collected the mail, but she didn't work every day, so they collected it some of the time. They said they didn't see any letter--but her husband made a note on the letter to the maid and didn't follow through. They were not very concerned about her status and dumped her when it became a political liability. This is not the worst "scandal" in the world-- but 1. they lied. 2. they look like hypocrites on the issue.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by hypocracy and lying, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 8:57 am

You are a champion of lesbian marriage and accused on front pages of newspapers of stealing from your spouse.

The evidence? Multiple mailings from insurance and cable companies promising lower rates. One has a handwritten note on it to a child in the family - "Is this a better deal?"

The difference is, in the case of the letter from the SS office, it is illegal to take any action.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Anon., a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 11:35 am

Maybe the status quo in California is not optimal, but does that excuse anyone from turn off their brain and voting for people who are trying to buy the office that have evidenced ZERO interest, track record or evidence that they can help the state or have any vision except making money?

I have been trying to listen to Whitman, but all I hear are slick negative ads, first about her primary opponent, and now about Jerry Brown.

The Brown years in CA were no so bad as I remember them.

I would be much more willing to hear Whitman if she has done anything to show a desire to serve the public, or even is she had shown half the strength of character that Jerry Brown has by merely losing a ton of weight and getting in shape for running for the office.

Whitman treats her body like she treats her maids, or she intends to treat the state I don't want any part of that dysfunction. What did she actually do at EBay. I have known a lot of corporate executives and honestly, most of them are good at creating competition and dissension among their subordinates, taking credit for other's ideas and running with it while claiming talent and leadership. What ideas did she have? Certainly we have done this experiment with Arnold and it has not proved out.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Anon., a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 11:46 am

>> Bottom line, anyone who would vote for Brown because of this, would have voted for Brown anyway. Brown has a n 8 year proven record of failure, whose policies we are STILL feeling the effects of in our infrastructure and energy


Uh ... all over I hear this statement being made with no backup, no explanation, no evidence. The state functioned much better back under Brown than it does not. Brown did not empty out the mental institutions and start California's homeless problem ... because I was there, I remember it.

We had Proposition 13, which was a big problem. I was going to community college at the time and it has been a defunding nightmare ever since. Go take a look at some of the facilities and classrooms at Foothill College. When I was there it cost me $5 a unit to enroll. I would work a job and go to school without any help from anyone.

Look at what we have now, our schools are funded by the public and serve an elite bunch of students and those foreigners who can afford the tuition.

Brown did not put Prop 13 into law, the people did, and he helped manage through it. The likes of Mark Levin are mentioned above here who has no business in the media anywhere. A guy simply cannot have the most simple conversation with any of this callers without foaming at the mouth like an idiot and hanging up on them ought to be kicked off the air and probably would be if the FCC had any inkling of what the "public interest" means.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Lou, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 11:52 am

In response to who is paying Allred...Jerry Brown assisted her daughter, who was representating Lindsay Lohan. Her daughter asked Jerry Brown to have the California Medical Board investigate the physicians who prescribed medications for Lohan in July.

At that time, the information re: the housekeeper was probably discussed and a deal forged that Allred would do what she did to help Brown so he would help the daughter with the Lohan matter.

Brown sent his team to the Allred's daughter's law office just last month...nice to know our law enforcement in California is up for sale for political favors... Web Link

By the way, excellent response:

Posted by Even more, Meg for me, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, 4 hours ago

Try reading the actual letter Whitmans got..then tell me that she "lied". Of course, that is if you can find a copy of it anywhere. I heard it read out loud WITH ALRED on the phone with Mark Levin.

The letter from the IRS never said the employee was illegal or undocumented, just asked for more documentation, and furhtermore was quite clear that if the Whitmans took any "adverse action" there could be consequences.

So, what are we to do?

1) Clearly, this employee lied to the Employment Agency the Whitmans trusted to vet the employee. Then the employee lied to the Whitmans, showing them a false Social Security Card with a fake number. Then she stayed with the Whitmans for 9 years ...and now we are supposed to believe ANYTHING she says? hmm

2) The Whitmans actually paid social security etc taxes on their housekeeper ( how many of you just pay cash under the table,, hmm?), which is the only reason they got the IRS letter in the first place,..wondering what number it was.

3) Then the Whitmans were stuck.."adverse consequences" if fire her?

This is a typical Allred dog and pony show, she hasn't been on TV enough.

In fact, some questions come to mind

1) Who is Alred representing? The client she has now publicly declared a perjuror and illegally here and subjected her to prosecution and deportation ( what a joke that is, of course, since our Feds actively prevent following immigratioon law)

2) If not the housekeeper ( clearly not, since she is now widely exposed)...who?

3) Who paid Alred?

This stinks, and just makes me like Meg even more for even trying to follow the law by going through an Agency, and paying stupid taxes like she was supposed to do.

And, unknowingly to the left, it makes people support e-verify EVEN MORE...if I hire someone and years later I am liable after going through an Agency and LOOKING AT A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD..then give me e-verify,...takes me off the hook of being forced to hire a private investigator on every housekeeper, babysitter and yard worker I hire.

I can't wait for this to backfire..and backfire it will. Even a semi-reasonable person would ask themselves: Why on earth would Meg Whitman jeapordize a campaign financed with so much of her OWN time and money over this with a "lie"?? The answer is, she wouldn't. Let's hope most Californians see this for what it is, typical dirty, dirty, dirty politics.

Bottom line, anyone who would vote for Brown because of this, would have voted for Brown anyway. Brown has a n 8 year proven record of failure, whose policies we are STILL feeling the effects of in our infrastructure and energy

Last: Wonder where all the illegals are in Brown's closet? Being paid to keep quiet? Bet Meg can out pay whatever is being paid. Will she?

Report Objectionable Content


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Lou, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 11:58 am

Gloria Allred represented Lindsay Lohan's father in June.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Liar, liar, pants on fire, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 12:07 pm

Lou:

"Brown sent his team to the Allred's daughter's law office just last month...nice to know our law enforcement in California is up for sale for political favors... Web Link"

That is not what the link says. There is no mention of Alldred.

The link does say"
"Bloom sent a letter to the California Attorney General back in July, asking for an investigation into "the unscrupulous doctors [who] overprescribe medications ..."
We're told the A.G. referred the matter to the Medical Board, which launched an investigation."

Nice try, Lou.
BTW, are you also Even more, Meg for me? Since you are repeating his/her post verbatim.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Even more, Meg for me, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 2:43 pm

I err'd..it wasn't a false social security card, just a false SS number, the housekeeper gave Meg. The false card was the CA Driver's license.

No, I am not Lou, but thanks, Lou, whoever you are.

I am watching this blow up with a big bang...even the Chronicle has to grudgingly admit that Meg did everything legally.

Now, here is what I want to know,..when an attorney lies to the American people about an individual, does he/she get disbarred? or promoted?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Prodigal Voter, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 2:51 pm

Whitman employees someone for 9 years and pays her $23.00 an hour. Then she fires that employee, fro her own reasons. What's the problem, here?.

I fire people all the time. And I have been doing it for +25 years. Employees are that, employees, they work at will. When the work is not up to my standards or my work is not being conducted on my terms, they are fired, simple.

BTW, this woman was paid for all her work at $23.00 per hour ($47,840 per year) for 9 years $430,560.00

The real question is were all the taxes paid on this woman's pay, all 1040's filed to the IRS and CA-FTB?




 +  Like this comment
Posted by Roger Overnaut, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 3:55 pm

Hey, Meg may have been technically legal, but she's careless or clueless. Even with all the resources at her money's command, she can't even manage to properly hire a housekeeper. No way I'd trust her with the state.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 4:13 pm

"Hey, Meg may have been technically legal, but she's careless or clueless. Even with all the resources at her money's command, she can't even manage to properly hire a housekeeper. No way I'd trust her with the state."

Roger, I agree with you. The problem is that Jerry Brown does not support mandatory E-Verify. Meg says she does. Not sure that I can believe her, because she is as hypocritical as Paul Losch (and the rest of the Palo Alto elites). Ever notice how many illegals are mowing the lawns of Palo Alto elites? And cleaning their homes? And raising their kids? And building their homes? All the while, driving down costs for the elites, while the rest of us have to pay the social costs.

Make E-Verify mandatory, and the problem will at least be more transparent, and plausible denaibility will become much more difficult. President Obama has already made E-Verify a requirment of federal contracts. When will the PA city council make it mandatory on all city contracts?

When will the PA elites stop hiding behind "I didn't know", since E-Verify is currently available to any employer? Meg is full of bs, but Jerry is opposed to E-Verify. I will vote for Meg, with the slim hope that she has been embarassed enough to obey the law.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 4:25 pm

Dear Kerry,

You have inquired in prior postings about the responsibility I have as a Parks and Recreation Commissioner with regard to hiring and contracting practices the City has.

Some time ago, I checked into your question, and as I recall you were provided a response with information about the strict requirements to hire an employee or contract with an outside agency to assure that CPA has to assure that employees and contract workers are legal.

If you have evidence that there are illegal immigrants working directly or indirectly for the City of Palo Alto, please provide it. It is one thing to make allegations, another to back them up.

Look at what Meg is going through.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Roger Overnaut, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 4:34 pm

I think Jerry Brown has the right idea. E-Verify is just another politician's smokescreen to make the gullible populace think something's being done, but it's all really the same-old-same-old-nothingburger behind the curtain. This dog ain't fooled.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 4:46 pm

Paul and Roger,

Both of you guys are avoiding the simple truth, illegals are being used by both the elites in Palo Alto, as well as the CPA government.

Paul: No you have not addressed the issue. The question is, do city contracts require E-Verify or not? Until you answer this question, you are just dodging the issue (like Meg). As a public official, more is expected of you.

Roger: You are fooled dog, if you cannot see that the era of plausible deniability on the illegal alien issue is over, even if you want to be in denial. Time to grow up, Roger.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 5:10 pm

Dear Kerry,

If you want to know if and how CPA uses E-Verify, I am not the person you should be asking. Contact the City Human Resources Department. Or the Human Resources Commission Members, which consists of unpaid volunteers as I am, dealing with various matters Palo Alto.

If you can provide some evidence that there are illegal immigrants working directly or indirectly on the behalf of the CPA, I am sure it would be taken very seriously and affect the status of such employees and the contractors who do work for the City.

Bark up the right trees, Kerry, if this is really important to you.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 5:54 pm

"Bark up the right trees, Kerry, if this is really important to you."

Paul, same old dodge. The Parks and Rec Commission, of which you are a part, signed off on hiring outside contractors to take care of the parks. And yet you refuse to look into the E-Verify issue, which is at the center of the illegal alien hiring in Palo Alto.

Paul, I understand that you don't want to touch the issue, because it would make you radioactive in Palo Alto, but you run your own blog here, and you are a public official. I am only asking one simple question of you: Does Palo Alto mandate E-Verify in its contracts, or not. You claim to have inside contact with City staff, so I am not asking too much of you.

Once you answer this simple question, Paul, we can step it back to your "disgust" of Meg. Until then, you are cheating your readers, and yourself.

E-Verify, Paul.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 6:00 pm

This thread has been largely addressing issues around Meg and questions around illegal immigrants and whether or not she hired such a person. Perfectly fine.

What this thread has not done, and I had hoped it would do when I posted it, is to address the flaws that all the candidates have.

Boxer, Jerry and Carly all have traits that call into question why they should hold such high office.

We will be stuck with two of them for the next 4+ years.

Here again is my version of the three other than Meg:

Boxer: empty suit
Brown: terrible Governor last time
Fiorina: failed CEO who seems to have a pathological tendency to attack her opponents, does not work well with people.

Such great choices.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 6:10 pm

Dear Kerry,

Nice try.

I provided you the information you need to gain an understanding of how the CPA makes sure to not hire illegal immigrants or contract with companies that hire illegal immigrants. I have talked with CPA staff about this, and your suggestions just don't hold water.

As for E-Verify, contact the CPA as I suggested before. It is not something I can provide any value added input on.

Bark bark!


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sharon, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 6:20 pm

A Bottom Feeder looking to pick up some billable hours-- what a joke

Gloria Allred has a colorful history of pulling last minute, ego-stroking stunts like this.

Allred attempted to derail Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2003 recall election by drumming up sexual harassment charges and a lawsuit from a Hollywood stunt woman named Rhonda Miller.
Miller claimed that Schwarzenegger "pulled up her shirt" and "suckled her breasts" on the Terminator 2 set.
She also alleged that Schwarzenegger fondled her during the filming of True Lies.
Despite the salacious allegations, Rhonda Miller's suit was later dismissed.
Allred is 69-- time to retire before the State Bar investigates pulling her CA law license


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sharon and Paul, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 6:24 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Disgusted, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 6:42 pm

Just in case someone hasn't already mentioned this ..

Allred produces one letter sent in 2003 from the IRS stating that they can't process the person hired as a maid's IRS contributions because of a problem with her IRS number. This doesn't make her an "illegal alien" .. just a person with a "funny number". No reason to believe that someone with an SS card, and a CA driver's license didn't just fill in a form wrong. So, you ask the person to "take care of it".

Well .. it's now 2009. Are there any more IRS letters? If they couldn't process the contributions in 2003, what have they been doing with them since then? Any more letters asking for correct documentation? Is the IRS complicit here--for failing to do its job making sure that the people filing IRS documentation are doing so honestly?

If there were no more letters, then why wouldn't the Whitmans believe that this had been "taken care of" (if they should ever think about it at all)?

The letter makes no claim that the named person was an "illegal" .. just that there is a "number conflict" with her IRS filing.

What's interesting here is that Allred (a known Democratic operative) is (presumably) making money on this person, a self-professed liar, with possibly a felony charge and deportation in her future, calling a Republican candidate for governor a liar, and implicitly claiming that she knowingly hired an illegal alien.

Who's the "bad guy" in this picture?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by common sense, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 7:01 pm

listen to this radio interview of Gloria Allred - she says the housekeeper is not an "illegal alien" Web Link

and read this in the SF Chronicle about the legal jeopardy is Meg Whitman had taken any action based on the letter from Social Security
Web Link


 +  Like this comment
Posted by pat, a resident of ,
on Oct 1, 2010 at 8:12 pm

Way too many half-truths and outright lies being spread. I don't like Whitman. I don't like Allred.

Here's a site to check often as the elections get closer. Nothing there on Whitman's housekeeper (yet).
Web Link


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sonny, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 9:42 am

Paul,
I agree with Kerry. You dodge around his one and only question with the skill of a polished politician. Answer with a definitive statement.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Meg for me, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 10:32 am

Paul: The problem with wanting to focus on all the faults of all the candidates is that, in the end, we have to choose one of them.

If any of us could have been better, and had the gumption to run, we would have.

None of us did, and here we are.

I prefer to focus on which one(s) profess(es) the solutions closest to the ones I believe would work for our problems.

Of those still standing, that would be Whitman and Fiorina.

Which ones are most likely to have the gumption to push for the changes I would like to see

Whitman and Fiornina.

Which ones have a proven track record of holding, successfully, private sector jobs where laws. taxes and employees had to be hired and dealt with. Which ones had to make decisions best for their companies in the long run ie: hard decisions for the longer term end-result

Whitman and Fiorina.

Neither were my first choice on the Repub side, but they are certainly far above the others in my opinion in having sound solutions.


Whether or not either one can overcome the tremendous roadblocks to change that they will encounter once in office is another question..but better than known same-old-failed solutions taking office, with no attempts to fix the real problems.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Resident, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 10:42 am

It is easy to say that with Arnold we tried a non-career politician and it failed. Arnie definitely tried to use his star status and non politician ways, but he was a movie star, body builder and the little business experience he had was depending on advisers rather than his own gumption. He tried and failed. But, this time we can choose people with pure business experience instead of career politicians. I think that a business credential of running a major company is worth giving it a try. California is in such a mess, another politician is what we don't need. A business mind just might be.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 11:03 am

Hello Meg for Me and Resident,

I hope you have a good weekend.

I have a high regard for Meg Whitman and a low regard for Carly Fiorina. Lumping them together does not work for me.

Being a Senator requires a great deal of collegiality, a trait Carly has demonstrated she lacks. Being a Chief Executive (Governor) requires leasership, which Meg has amply demonstrated, not just at E-Bay, but in her prior positions of responsibility.

I dislike how both Meg and Carly are conducting their campaigns for office.

There are numerous examples of capable business people becoming effective holders of public office, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg the most conspicuous current example.

That does not mean that these two business executives are fit for the offices they seek. Or that they are.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 11:21 am

"I have talked with CPA staff about this, and your suggestions just don't hold water.

As for E-Verify, contact the CPA as I suggested before. It is not something I can provide any value added input on.

Bark bark!"

Paul, you are turning logic on it head. I have asked you, a public official on a commission in Palo Alto that has allowed illegals to maintain our parks (as a cost-saving measure) to make a simple inquiry. You say it is up to me to prove that they are illegals. No, it is not! It is up to CPA to verify that no illegals are being paid by this city. The best avaialbe due dilligence on this point is the federal program of E-Verify...it is fast and pretty good.

You blame Meg "looked the other way for 9 years", but here you are doing the same thing. Meg hired her illegal nanny through an outside contractor which did not use E-Verify. That is how the game is played. Meg can claim she didn't know, and the contractor can claim that it used the only mandated paperwork, that being drivers license and SS # (both easily counterfeited). The nanny lied, which is what happens all the time. E-Verify would have caught her.

Come on, Paul, just go back to your CPA manager who assures you that no illegals are working for CPA, and ask him/her if E-Verify is mandated. That is a very simple and honest request. You should be able to report a straight-forward response from said manager. It either is, or is not mandated.

How about a little bite from you, instead of so much bark?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 11:36 am

Dear Kerry,

I have made an inquiry about hiring policies and contracting policies, and City staff provided me with information that satisfied me that illegal aliens are not working on behalf of CPA.

You want to know about E-Verify, and that is a different question. The reason I re-direct you to the CPA is because you can get a more knowledgable and direct answer from either the CPA HR Department or the Human Resources Board.

I suggest you expend future energy on this matter with the folks that are most competent and capable of providing you a full understanding of this matter. Going through me to get an answer to your specific question aabout E-Verify is not going to provide you the level of detail you appear to need to satisfy your concerns.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 12:05 pm

"Going through me to get an answer to your specific question aabout E-Verify is not going to provide you the level of detail you appear to need to satisfy your concerns."

Paul,

You certainly thought that your inquiry of city staff was satisfactory to prove "your suggestions just don't hold water". I beg to differ. Your inquiry appears to be a cursory acceptance of a milque-toast reply to you. I am only asking that you go back to the same person, and ask if mandated E-Verify is the basis of his/her answer to you.

Very easy thing for you to do, Paul. No brainer, really. I am not asking you to defend the current policy, just to shed transparency on what it is. This is a VERY legitimate request of a public official in Palo Alto, especially one who is on a commission that allows the hiring of illegals.

If you can blame Meg for looking the other way, you can surely agree to look the truth in the face.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 12:54 pm

Adios Kerry.

You make allegations that you are not prepared to back up and expect this public official to carry your water when you can go to the appropriate people in the City to provide you much better than I can clear and complete answers to your questions.

When I have a question at work around an HR question, I don't go to the Marketing Department. All they would do is go to the HR department.

The Parks and Recreation Commission does not have authority or responsibility for personnel or contractor matters.

I have attempted to help you understand how you can best get answers to your questions. I really don't have anything more to say, except goog luck and Adios


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 1:04 pm

"The Parks and Recreation Commission does not have authority or responsibility for personnel or contractor matters."

Paul,

If illegals are taking care of our parks, and our parks are your responsibility, and you signed off on outside contractors to save money, then your commission is certainly responsible to make sure that the law is not being broken in our parks. Dah!

Get with it, Paul, just ask the question about E-Verify. No need to 'adios' me, or anybody else who is asking a legitimate question. You are shucking your responsibility, if you do.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 1:20 pm

Adios Kerry


 +  Like this comment
Posted by sonny, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 2:25 pm

Paul,
Just answer Kerry's question.
Don't think that it will go away. You owe the citizens a straightforward answer.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Meg for me, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 2:30 pm

This is why we need an effective Senator from California, one who wants to do real work...not this stuff...

Web Link

The GRAND AND HONORABLE Senate of the United States of America, with everything else that demands their attention obviously well taken care of already, voted Wednesday to "mandate" that commercials be the same volume as the show people are watching.

Schumer, Democrat, co-sponsor, says "TV viewers should be able to watch their favorite programs without fear of losing their hearing when the show goes to a commercial".

Thank God those Democrats are busily protecting me from having to "dive for my remote" every time a commercial comes on! I might break a finger or something!


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Anon, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 4:29 pm

"Meg for me" writes:

"Thank God those Democrats are busily protecting me from having to "dive for my remote" every time a commercial comes on! I might break a finger or something!"

Actually, it *is* the responsibility of Congress to protect the public's interest in the use of the "public airwaves" (RF broadcast spectrum if you prefer). Sadly, Congress has acted against this public interest with frequently in the last three decades.



 +  Like this comment
Posted by Anon, a resident of ,
on Oct 2, 2010 at 4:58 pm

Paul Losch writes:

"I am increasingly disgusted with the character of candidates for State office in California, to whit:

"I really have no clue what Senator Barbara Boxer has to show for all her time in Washington, DC."

She has usually voted with more in the interest of the middle class and less in the interest of the super-rich. That is, in itself, leadership.

"Jerry Brown was a complete flake as California Governor some 30+ years ago. And he is bragging about it now that he is running again for the same office. What BS."

He wasn't a great governor, but, in retrospect, my nostalgia for that era is growing. I'm trying to think of a governor since that I like better, and, I can't.

"Meg Whitman is very smart, has been branding herself and talking about her "plan" as if it was like running a brand. Meg has said little or nothing about her "plan" and how it works with a State Assembly and State Senate."

I agree-- she talks like she is running for governor of Walmart, not California. Does she know anything about government? But, what I really don't like are her ads, which seem designed to convince people that she is a liar and a bully.

"Carly Fiorina "could not help but think" that Senator Boxer was beholden to certain interest groups. When last night's debate moderator asked Carly to name Barbara's interest groups, she was vague, and specified no entities. Twice. Her campaign was asked the same question today, and could not provide specifics."

Many of us who live around here got to see far too much of Carly's "Divine right of CEO's" management style when she was heading up HP. She is a perfect example of what is wrong with corporate management today, focusing only on this quarter's profits at the expense of long-term profitability.



 +  Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of ,
on Oct 3, 2010 at 9:10 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

The main reason for opposition to E-verify is that once in place it would be easy to verify public service recipients too.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Anon, a resident of ,
on Oct 4, 2010 at 9:05 am

Paul Losch wrote:

"I have a high regard for Meg Whitman and a low regard for Carly Fiorina. Lumping them together does not work for me."

I agree-- they are obviously very different personally and professionally.

"Being a Senator requires a great deal of collegiality, a trait Carly has demonstrated she lacks. Being a Chief Executive (Governor) requires leadership, which Meg has amply demonstrated, not just at E-Bay, but in her prior positions of responsibility."

"I dislike how both Meg and Carly are conducting their campaigns for office."

You can't divorce the candidate from the campaign. Just as George H. W. Bush defined himself with the Willie Horton issue and the rest of Lee Atwater's dirty campaign, Meg Whitman is defining herself with her ad campaign. I don't see any leadership or discussion of substantive issues-- just a massive barrage of misleading negative ads-- that is how Meg Whitman is defining herself right now.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by anonymous, a resident of ,
on Oct 4, 2010 at 10:37 am

I can't believe the Meg apologists seek to blame others for Meg's mess of HER OWN CREATION.

What happened to personal responsibility? And telling the truth?

--------------

Meg lied about them never getting the letter, and implied that Nicky, whom she loved like family, was a thief who went through her mail.

A couple hours later, the letter shows up, with their notes on it. Liar.

Later she admits they employed another illegal during Nicky's time off.

The Whitman campaign knew about the illegals from the beginning and never moved to pre-empt the scandal. I thought money bought expertise. Maybe Meg calls the shots - a rookie mistake, or compulsive?

Meg, when she (supposedly) found out about Nicky's status in 2009, fired her on the spot. If she loved her like family, why didn't she get her a good lawyer to help her, admit the mistake ahead of the scandal, and use it as part of her immigration platform?

It would've made her finally look warm and human, and been a brilliant part of her campaign, rather than just another rich politician trying to hide something.

Just another Arnold.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 4, 2010 at 11:25 am

"Later she admits they employed another illegal during Nicky's time off."

Oh, but she didn't actually 'know', becasue she was not mandated to use E-Verify. I include her cutout contract agency in this.

Jerry Brown supports illegal immigration, the more the better. Otherwise, he would be touting E-Verify (as Meg is now doing...OK, she's a hypocrit, but she now claims to support E-V).

E-Verify is at the center of this issue, and is increasingly becoming an issue in the campaign.

Now, if we only knew that Palo Alto mandates the use of E-Verify...or not.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by anonymous, a resident of ,
on Oct 4, 2010 at 11:42 am

Kerry:

You are funny. A billionaire lies about the letter, calls someone she loves a thief, and all you have is e-verify.

Poor victim Meg can't manage to find ANY way to verify who she brings into her HOME?

She doesn't have the resources, or doesn't have the interest?

Maybe Meg might have been too busy voting.

Oh, yeah, maybe not....


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of ,
on Oct 4, 2010 at 11:56 am

From a senior member of CPA Management:

The City does NOT use E-verify.
We use LiveScan through the California Department of Justice to assess the background of each applicant.
I would venture to guess that the finger printing process is more comprehensive than the E-Verify process.
Hope this helps.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 4, 2010 at 1:10 pm

Paul,

Thank you. All of my searching on the Internet, about E-Verify, shows that only Lancaster requires it, in order to assure that illegal aliens are not being hired. You have now confirmed that Palo Alto does not require it.

Live Scan is a criminal background check, and it has little or nothing to do with immigration status. It is aimed, particulalry, at screening out sex offenders who might want to get involved with youth. An illegal with no criminal record would not be identified as illegal, assuming they are using fake DL and SS numbers. E-Verify works at the level of catching the fake DL and SS numbers.

Bottom line: If E-Verify is not required, the default assumption is that illegals are being hired, because all other checks are either irrelevant or subject to fraud. Hiring an illegal is against the law, period. E-Verify just provides a simple check to make sure that it does not happen. E-Verify is not as good as a biometric national ID card, but it is reasonable, and MUCH better than drivers license and SS#.

Now, is Palo Alto still standing by its statement to you that illegals are not being used to maintain our parks?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of ,
on Oct 4, 2010 at 5:51 pm

Dear Kerry,

You are welcome.

You are making some very serious allegations about hiring and contracting practices in CPA.

You seem to have an expectation that I am going to pursue your allegations. As I said before, Adios on that.

I really think you need to contact volunteer/members in the Human Resources Commission or the City's HR department about your concerns. You have an expectation from me that I will not accept, and frankly is out of my area of responsibility. When I contacted someone about this in the City, that person went to the HR Department. That's how it works, whether you like it or not.

As I have said repeatedly to you, please provide evidence, the City will take it seriously. What you seem to not understand is that it is important to go through the right channels. In the case of your "issue," I am not the right channel, although I am glad I could direct you to the right channels.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sharon, a resident of ,
on Oct 4, 2010 at 7:35 pm


Glad we do not have this problem with candidates

"A veteran federal judge faces drug and firearms charges after an exotic dancer at an Atlanta strip club told authorities he used cocaine, marijuana and other illegal drugs with her.

Senior U.S. District Judge Jack T. Camp was arrested Friday minutes after he handed an undercover law enforcement agent $160 for cocaine and Roxycodone, a narcotic pain medication, that he intended to use with the exotic dancer, authorities said in a court document released Monday.
They said they also found two firearms in the front seat of his vehicle."


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 4, 2010 at 9:06 pm

"As I have said repeatedly to you, please provide evidence, the City will take it seriously."

Paul, how can the city take it seriously, if they do not mandate E-Verify? Your logic just does not compute. You seem to want me, an individual citizen with no inside connections, to verify the legality of potential illegals, yet I am not their employer. Their employer is the city of Palo Alto. You are on the official city commission that handles the parks and the laws covering them. Why do you keep kicking it back to me? It your responsibility to make sure that no laws are being broken, not mine. I am just saying that CPA is hiring illegals, and you do not seem to want to do your duty, yet you criticize Meg for not doing her duty.

After much ado, you have, finally, verfied that CPA does NOT use E-Verify. That is the starting point. The road forward, in order to make sure that CPA is not paying illegal aliens, is to insist that CPA mandate the use of E-Verify. Do you agree?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by illegals, a resident of ,
on Oct 4, 2010 at 10:05 pm

It's not really about Paul, but what risk does PA have for employing illegals? Suppose it is found that we have a dozen or so who have not violated the laws that Live Scan flags working for city contractors. Would the city have any legal exposure at all?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Ano Nymous, a resident of ,
on Oct 4, 2010 at 10:38 pm

Paul, do you really think that the AG candidates "seem OK?" Kamala Harris has done nothing to control crime in San Francisco, and in many ways has encouraged it to escalate. She refused to seek the death penalty against a convicted cop killer, the SF drug lab is so chaotic that hundreds if not thousands of pending cases have been dismissed, she encourages the continued status of SF as an illegal "sanctuary city," and she allows the ACLU to run rampant in keeping cops from doing their jobs.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of ,
on Oct 4, 2010 at 10:57 pm

Dear Kerry,

No, I do not agree.

I know nothing about E-Verify. It may be a great tool, or there may be things about it that have led to CPA to not use it. The PA HR Department and the PA Human Relations Board are the responsible entities in such questions. Even if I chose to pursue your idea, it would very quickly end up with those folks.

You are making some serious allegations, but do not seem prepared to provide even preliminary evidence to back up your claims. By contrast, the CPA has policies in place to assure illegal aliens are not hired as City employees, and that contractors which do work on behalf of the CPA only have employees who are here legally.

As I recommended to you before, bark up the right trees. If this E-Verify question is that important to you, it does not require much effort on your part to contact people on the Human Relations Board, who are citizens as you and I are, or the City's HR Department.

Direct your energy to where it can provide answers to your questions. It may be great sport for you to ask me the same thing over and over again, and get the same response over and over again, but it will not lead to an answer to your question, and I find it tiresome.

Especially on a thread that is intended to bring out people's thoughts about 4 people running for high office for this State.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of ,
on Oct 5, 2010 at 4:07 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

If government had not through the ages insinuated itself into every aspect of our lives, and had been content to oversee the defense and infrastructure there might be less need for buying a politician in self defense. This might attract a different sort of person to politics. In other words, you cooked it, you eat it.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 5, 2010 at 6:04 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Roger Overnaut, a resident of ,
on Oct 6, 2010 at 4:22 pm

"what risk does PA have for employing illegals?"

Ask Meg Whitman about the risks of employing illegals.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by narnia, a resident of ,
on Oct 6, 2010 at 10:42 pm

E -verify is one of those stupid ideas that only works in theory. Many immigrants have name structures that are different form anglo saxons: some have just one name, some have many that are then chopped , altered or misspelled as seen fit by authorities and many (the 7,000 irish around New Jersey) have anglo-saxon names and speak english but are nevertheless undocumented. And how do you know someone is undocumented? Many people whose english is not a first language are citizens and therefore their names aren't in E verify. Add to that ignorance about the law and you are set for lawsuits and unfairness.
I would agree with Meg Whitman that employers should be held accountable, but as you have seen in her case that's better said than done and she hasn't yet own up to her actions.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 7, 2010 at 3:24 am

"E-verify is one of those stupid ideas that only works in theory"

You should tell that to Obama, since he requires E-Verify for all large federal contracts. It is based on multiple usage of the same SS number against names on I-9 forms. Increasingly, photo biometrics are being employed. A potential employee can appeal a result, if there is a false positive (based on name confusion). It is not perfect, but it is very effective. If Meg had been required to use it, she would not be able to claim that she didn't know. More and more large employers are using it, in order to avoid potential legal challenges. The mere existance of E-Verify is enough to cause illegals to look elsewhere.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by daniel, a resident of ,
on Oct 7, 2010 at 7:59 am

During the flaky Brown governorship, California's public schools were much better than they are now, so was the infrastructure, the economy and just about everything else. In the meantime, Whitman cared so much that she didn't even bother to register and vote. What she cared about is to nickle and dime her help and treat them like garbage. This terrible woman wants to turn our state into California, Inc. The combined integrity of Whitman and Fiona is a big fat zero. Whitman was arguably competent as a corporatist, althoug a friend who knew her during her years at e-bay disagrees, Fiona was laughingly incompetent as one and neither deserves to be elected dog catcher.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of ,
on Oct 7, 2010 at 9:36 am

Information from CPA HR Department:

All regular and hourly new hires are required to complete a I-9 form required by US Homeland Security which requires employers to request original documents that establish both identity and employment eligibility. As you know, HR is quite strict about ensuring that we have this form completed prior to the start of employment. Contractors hired by the City would be required to complete this document as well however as far as I know, we do not collect this form during the contract process. There is a provision in every City contract that requires contractors to follow all state and federal laws.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 7, 2010 at 2:05 pm

Paul,

Thanks for the info. It is what I thought. I-9 forms are the basis for illegal aliens being hired, because they only demand one two forms of identification, namely the SS number and the drivers license, both of which are easily counterfeited and obtained, for a price, on the street. That is the reason that E-Verify was instituted by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. E-Verify literally verifies the I-9 forms...or rejects them.

The I-9 form, by itself, is worse than useless, because it allows officials to claim that they have done all they can do to verify legal status. This is exactly what Meg (and her crew) did. It is also what Palo Alto is doing, and it explains why CPA is hiring illegals. If CPA wants to come clean on this issue, it must start using E-Verify.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by parent, a resident of ,
on Oct 7, 2010 at 2:31 pm

Hi Paul,
I agree that the candidates you mention are flawed human beings, and I'm not particularly excited about them, either. However, unless you'd like anarchy -- and I'm sure in that case Somalia might be a better place than the Bay Area -- we do need people in government service. And let's face it, given how big and forceful the peanut gallery is these days, it's a tough job to do well. It's tough to wage campaigns, it's tough to do the job, especially since every Joe out there thinks they can do it better from their sofa.

I know you are active locally. Think about how difficult it is to run even local events, start anything new, improve something going wrong. For every helping hand, there are fifty critics. We ask our elected officials, especially on a state and federal level, to be superhuman or we think they're no good.

Think about all the things we demand of them -- could Abraham Lincoln have survived our modern political environment? The man was ugly, boring, and depressed. What about George Washington? I mean, let's just start with the guy's dentures... What about Thomas Jefferson and his personal life?

I see a lot of real human beings -- flawed, yes, including in some cases in ideology (IMO) -- but real human beings with good intentions, I believe, in every case. They're just individual people. They'd be a lot more superhuman if more of us rolled up our sleeves and got to work alongside them.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Mike, a resident of ,
on Oct 8, 2010 at 10:01 am

Of course I can vote for Meg Whitman-if for no other reason than it is not a vote for Jerry Brown. Arnold has not been the most successful govenor getting out of the mess California is in, but he has been able to stop many of the legislature's actions that would dig us even deeper into the hole we currently find ourselves in.

Jerry agrees with them on most issues. The hole will get deeper if he is elected.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Mike, a resident of ,
on Oct 8, 2010 at 10:13 am

Most of the criticism of Cary Fiorino as a candidate seems to come from current/former HP people bemoaning her role in the loss of the 'HP Way' and from others never involved with HP who believe in the 'HP Way' because they heard good things about it.

I was involved with HP in business a number of times starting in the early 70's and going through 2002. The HP Way was an asset for the company for a long time, but times changed, competition changed and customer buying practices changed. What once was a great company culture became the wrong answer to thrive in the changed business enviorment where HP has lived for at least the last 10-20 years.

Fiorino should not be condemned for the change she advocated and enacted.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by anonymous, a resident of ,
on Oct 8, 2010 at 11:48 am

Carly sunk the value of HP - tanked it, while eliminating American jobs.

What does she know about creating jobs for California?

Meg paid 2.6 BILLION for Skype. Billion. Wow.

Worst. Deal. Ever.

How can she work with the legislature? At least with Arnold, they all wanted a picture with him. With Meg, she'll just assault one of the smaller women assembly members, and then settle out of court.

Again.

Of course, their secret advantage this election cycle?

They may actually VOTE this time around.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Roger Overnaut, a resident of ,
on Oct 8, 2010 at 5:12 pm

A vote for Meg Whitman is an endorsement for illegal aliens. It's that simple.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sharon, a resident of ,
on Oct 8, 2010 at 5:44 pm


Brown has just lost a huge amount of the CA womens vote after calling Meg a whore

Guess his masked slipped and we all now see his misogynist core--not a pretty sight--not a pretty sight at all.

Brown is toast


 +  Like this comment
Posted by I like butter on my toast, a resident of ,
on Oct 8, 2010 at 7:49 pm

Well, now it is certain that Brown will win the election. When Sharon calls someone "toast" that means they will go on to great sucess. go back and read who else she has called "toast". BTW, it was not Brown that called Whitman a "whore" and it all has to be taken in the context of what was being discussed. Need we remind Sharon that Whitman assaulted an eBay employee while she was there and also employed illegal aliens and stiffed her other workers for their salary--not exactly a role model for anyone.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 8, 2010 at 8:10 pm

"A vote for Meg Whitman is an endorsement for illegal aliens. It's that simple."

Roger, not so simple, actually. Meg got caught. Jerry doesn't care, in fact he wants more illegals. Meg now says she supports E-Verify, but Jerry will never support E-Verify, because it is effective.

Meg should be held accountable for hiring an illegal, as should the city of Palo Alto. The difference is that Meg is now admitting it, and making amends. CPA has yet to admit it.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sharon, a resident of ,
on Oct 8, 2010 at 8:43 pm



Why would Brown tonight apologize for calling Meg an whore if he did not call Meg a whore in the first place?


Brown has shown his true misogynist colors 3 weeks before the election.

He has lost CA womens vote and it serves him right--at least we now know the truth about Brown after all these years.

If Meg had called Brown a doddering geriatric then she would have lost the seniors vote---but she did not and she would not


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sigh, a resident of ,
on Oct 9, 2010 at 6:55 am

Sigh...again...Meg did not hire an illegal alien.

She hired someone who had what seemed to be a valid CA driver's license ( we used to believe one couldn't fake out our DMV..guess that just ain't so), who came from an employment agency which testified to her employability. She paid taxes to the SSN provided by Weepy Nicky, and then got a letter 2 years later from the IRS that said she couldn't take action on the contents of the letter, but to please verify some information. She passed it to Nicky, whom she trusted ( wrongly, apparently), to fill out the paper work and send in.

Once Whitman learned that, indeed, Weepy Nicky ( why is she crying so much?......shame??) had lied on the driver's license and ss number, and therefore was not legally employable, she fired her.

Whitman followed all known laws and did all that was possible and humane.

Good argument for e-verify, btw.

As for Brown, listen carefully,,he didn't call Whitman that W word, but said "I can run with that" or something like that. He endorsed the use of it, in other words.

Doddering fool, doesn't know when he is and is not off-line, and furthermore is a dunderhead yuk....


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Resident, a resident of ,
on Oct 9, 2010 at 9:38 am

Jerry Brown's run for Governor (again) is his swan song. His age, if nothing else, has to be against him. Also he is a life-long politician with a failed presidential run. His motivation for running again must be questioned. If he fails to get elected his future is that of a retired gentleman with nothing to do but write his memoirs, do the round of chat shows, and live in the shadows of his past achievements. In other words, he will retire gracefully. If he wins, we must ask ourselves how much useful energy can he put into this job and whether he can last the pace. I feel that he is already pacing himself as his election campaign was late to start and only in the past couple of weeks began to pick up steam. A sign of age there possibly.

Meg Whitman may have come into politics late and the fact that she never voted means very little to me. It is obvious that she put her effort into her jobs in the past which I see means that whatever her job, whether it be running EBay or California, she will be putting her job first, and her company or her State will get 100% commitment.

These two facts about the two candidates should not be ignored. Do we want an aging has been, or a committed professional? Arnold was not a politician or a successful business leader. We now have a choice between a lifelong politician with a failed presidential run, or a successful business leader with experience of getting the business done. Which do we want?

And as for Carly, I think that for a recent breast cancer survivor, she is doing a splendid job and politics aside, I really admire her for not letting her health stand in the way of her goal.

Maybe I just look at things differently from everyone else.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Liar, liar, pants on fire, a resident of ,
on Oct 9, 2010 at 10:27 am

"Why would Brown tonight apologize for calling Meg an whore if he did not call Meg a whore in the first place?"

He apologized for his campaign people. A person acknowledges mistakes, apologizes and moves on. People like SHaron twist the truth and when they are caught do not apologize. That is the difference between a real person and a Sharon.

"Brown has shown his true misogynist colors 3 weeks before the election."
How so, Sharon. Brown did not make the statement

"He has lost CA womens vote and it serves him right--at least we now know the truth about Brown after all these years."

Well, how do you explain this article, Sharon?
Web Link

"If Meg had called Brown a doddering geriatric then she would have lost the seniors vote---but she did not and she would not "
How do you come up with this "fact"?
Whitman would just assault those that disagree with her, as others point out regarding her hitting of a fellow eBay employee. One has to wonder if we can trust a person with such a volatile and violent temper to be head of this state.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by anonymous, a resident of ,
on Oct 9, 2010 at 10:37 am

"Sigh...again...Meg did not hire an illegal alien"

Meg employed an illegal for nine years. That is a fact.

Meg LIED about never getting the mismatch SSA letter, and implied that Nicky, whom she loved like family, was a thief who went through her mail.

A couple hours later, the letter shows up, with their notes on it. Liar.

Later she admits they employed another illegal during Nicky's time off.

The Whitman campaign knew about the illegals from the beginning and never moved to pre-empt the scandal. I thought money bought expertise. Maybe Meg calls the shots - a rookie mistake, or compulsive?

Meg, when she (supposedly) found out about Nicky's status in 2009, fired her on the spot. If she loved her like family, why didn't she get her a good lawyer to help her, admit the mistake ahead of the scandal, and use it as part of her immigration platform?

It would've made her finally look warm and human, and been a brilliant part of her campaign, rather than just another rich politician trying to hide something.

Just another Arnold.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 9, 2010 at 1:39 pm

"Meg employed an illegal for nine years. That is a fact."

Yes it is a fact. It is also a fact that Palo Alto hires illegals. Jerry Brown approves the hiring of illegals, although he won't state it directly. His party is all about 'not knowing, knowlingly', as well as sanctuary cities. Meg 'knew', but she can claim that is was all legal, becasue E-Verify was not required. Then she wanted to become the Guv, and her campaign handlers determined the truth (probably by running an E-Verify query).

At this point, only Meg will take a strong stance against illegals, and push for a mandatory E-Verify in this state.

If you want to end illegal hiring, Meg is the only choice (strange as it seems), at this point.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by anonymous, a resident of ,
on Oct 9, 2010 at 3:21 pm

"If you want to end illegal hiring, Meg is the only choice (strange as it seems), at this point."

Other than a campaign promise, what has Meg shown to prove she will prosecute businesses for illegal hiring?

- she has taken special interest money from business (more total special interest money than Brown)
- she hired foreigners while at ebay (h1b visas)while laying off Americans and taking a $120M bonus
- she hired illegals at her home
- republicans, even when in charge, have never put in and enforced restrictions punishing businesses that hire illegals

The only Meg promise I take at face value is she will eliminate cap gains taxes for the wealthy.

Without paying for it. Just like Bush, Newt with his 94 contract, and others who promise the moon, they only deliver tax cuts and run up debt.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 9, 2010 at 3:38 pm

"Other than a campaign promise, what has Meg shown to prove she will prosecute businesses for illegal hiring?"

Answer: Nothing. However she has stated that she will support E-Verify. Do I believe her?...ummh, not sure. I am sure, though, that Jerry will do nothing, in fact he will obstruct most/all efforts to stop the illegal hiring/welfare scandal.

You are right that both the right (business owners) and the left (illegal apologists) will want to continue the scandal. However, E-Verify will throw the entire thing into the sunlight. No longer will businesses be able to claim that they didn't know; likewise, the 'know nothings', like the city of Palo Alto, will not be able to hide behind scandalous excuses like "Live Scan" and "I-9 forms".

I would like to commend Paul Losch for staying with this thing. He is in the public spotlight, both because he is a (voluntary) city official, and he runs a public blog. I am not picking on him, personally, but I am challenging him to face the truth. He is, gradually, getting there. If he goes the final step, and demands that CPA mandate E-Verify, I will support him for City Council.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by anonymous, a resident of ,
on Oct 9, 2010 at 7:55 pm

Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown? Sigh...not sure how to vote.
The candidates I cannot stand - for their utter smugness, condescending idiocy: Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris - hey...oddly...both are from San Francisco. Take a look at how things are run in S.F. and conditions there and see if you want to make that more widespread. No.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Meg, for me, a resident of ,
on Oct 10, 2010 at 5:24 am

If nothing else, at least Whitman is not in the pocket of unions and longstanding lobbies.

I like other things about her, but that is enough to vote for her..the anti-"business as usual" candidate.

Then we have to hold her feet to the fire and not let her get sucked into the corrupt business as usual mode of politicians. Schwarzeneger started out fine, tried to go around the corrupt legislature with propositions that would have been results-oriented, but unfortunately the people of California voted them all down. Maybe Meg will have more muscle. At least she wouldn't be a rubber stamp for the Ca legislature.

Her hands will be tied though if CA is foolish enough to vote in the 51% majority in the legislature to pass new taxes ...that will remove all hope of saving this titanic.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by anonymous, a resident of ,
on Oct 10, 2010 at 10:33 am

Meg, for you:

"...at least Whitman is not in the pocket of..."

Meg IS in the pocket of the usual republican special interests. Besides self funding to the tune of $120 Million, Meg has taken more SPECIAL INTEREST money than Jerry! Amazing!

"...who report that despite the unprecedented $119 million eMeg has forked out of her own pocket, she's actually outraised Krusty in outside contributions, $10.7 to $9.5 million.

The several millions of Whitman's outside fundraising from "donors with business before the state and corporate leaders," the Timesmen smartly note, are "potentially undercutting her claim that her personal fortune makes her uniquely free of special-interest entanglements.""

Web Link

Just another Arnold, claiming to be so rich he doesn't need special interest money (on Leno's show) and then setting records for taking it.

Meg is in this solely to eliminate the cap gains tax. Billions for the wealthy in times of a massive budget crisis?!?

You are correct with one word about that policy: Titanic.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Meg, for me, a resident of ,
on Oct 11, 2010 at 9:04 am

Bad notation, anonymous...raising more money does NOT mean raising more special interest money.


Read it again.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by anonymous, a resident of ,
on Oct 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm

How so?

Meg has raised more outside money than Jerry.

Brown's tends to come in smaller amounts, from individuals, while Meg gets it in larger amounts from fewer.

"The several millions of Whitman's outside fundraising from "donors with business before the state and corporate leaders," the Timesmen smartly note, are "potentially undercutting her claim that her personal fortune makes her uniquely free of special-interest entanglements.""

Or are you denying Arnold set records in accepting special interest money?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Kerry, a resident of ,
on Oct 11, 2010 at 3:05 pm

annonymous, just curious: Do you support mandatory E-Verify?



Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Follow this blogger (Receive an email when blogger makes a new post)

SUBMIT

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Cho's, beloved dim sum spot, to reopen in Los Altos
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 5,921 views

Why I Became Active in Palo Alto Forward
By Steve Levy | 12 comments | 2,308 views

Early Decision Blues
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,939 views

Guest Post from HSSV: Adopt a Naughty Dog!
By Cathy Kirkman | 2 comments | 1,494 views

First Interview
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 1,123 views