Meg Whitman's voting record short, sparse

Almost 9 million Californians cast ballots in the 2003 special election that swept movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger into the Governor's Office.

Meg Whitman wasn't among them.

The billionaire businesswoman now running for governor herself in 2010 didn't vote in that special election, even after Business Week listed her among a group of top executives with "worse than spotty voting records" in a 2000 magazine story, public records show.

Whitman apologized for failing to vote "on several occasions" as she introduced herself earlier this year as a candidate to replace Schwarzenegger as governor at a state Republican Party convention in Sacramento. She said her failure to vote was a mistake for which she had no excuses.

"Every citizen should take time to vote, and on more than one occasion, I didn't," the former eBay chief told the GOP activists. "Voting is a precious gift handed down by generations of Americans. I regret not having delivered my vote on several occasions."

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2205364.html?utm_source=ElectionMall+Technologies+Inc.&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=%28Press%29_Statement+from+Team+Poizner+Communications+Director+Jarrod+Agen+on+Meg+Whitman%27s+Voting+Record_9_24_2009

And whatever spare time she had after doing that she spent counting her money.

herself the governorship. That doesn't play well here.

these kinds of articles bother me because our voting records should NEVER be public records.

I think the public has every right to know if you voted or not if you are going to run for office. The only thing that is and should be private about a candidate's voting record is who they voted for, IMO.

We really dont want to go down that path, do we?

Knowing whether someone voted doesn't make their votes "known" because we don't know how they voted -- it just tells us whether they take seriously their civic duty in our representative democracy. What sort of "enemies" can you envision against a person if we have no idea what or who they voted for?

He warned me when I approached my 18th birthday to always vote, no matter what.

He was afraid that one day our country would be in control of some dangerous people (his descriptions led me to later believe he was referring to then unnamed neocons) who would consider voting as an allegiance to the government, and necessary to maintaining your rights as a citizen.

Its with that warning in mind I believe reporting voting habits of individuals to be an affront to our constitution.

Got it?

... if voting was considered to bear any relation to "an allegiance to the government" in this country. But it doesn't mean that here. Even if it did in the future, how would voting in the past reflect "an allegiance to the government" when that wasn't the reason people voted in the past?

So, no, I don't get it. But we can agree to disagree. :)

I believe the reason the names of registered voters are posted at polling places - at least in California - is to prevent fraud. Here, people are checked off as they vote. Who they vote for is still private.

This was similar to Bill Frist's voting record before he ran for US Senate. Never voted in his adult life until about 2 years before he ran for office.

There ought to be a law that says you are ineligible to run for federal office if you haven't voted in at least the last 10 elections in which you were eligible to vote. Just pathetic. Hopefully this puts the kaboosh on her having a chance in hell of winning the election.

She also comes up short on any good new ideas for managing our great state...

:eyes:

She is over 50 years old and didn't even bother to register to vote until 2002. Sparse seems to equal "just about non-existent."

California's problems require serious problem-solving, not vanity candidates looking for fame.

No more former actors, no more failed business CEOs.

California is in trouble. It's time to elect a troubleshooter.

I think Jerry has the guts to do whatever needs to be done and pull warring interests together. I'm not sure Gavin has the gravitas to do that.

He has the experience. I'm not sure he has the desire, though.

I agree he would be good - again; and there's no real question he's running. He's the most official "unofficial" candidate I've ever heard. He's already talking about the general election and doesn't seem to worry about the primary (polls show Newsom wouldn't pose a problem for Brown). No question that Jerry Brown has been an outstanding Attorney General. As for Newsom, he's even - apparently - considering dropping out and ceding the race to Brown.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Does-Baby-Newsom-Give-Mayor-Excuse-to-End-Governor-Bid-61269027.html

And try these two from this past Tuesday (announcement of exploratory committee):
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/california-atty-gen-jerry-brown-dropped-by-los-angeles-city-hall-this-morning-shaking-hands-with-council-members-and-appea.html

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_13394657

http://www.jerrybrown.org/

The Republican bar doesn't appear to be set very high!

For a person in IT for over 20 years, there's not really much more that needs to be said.

An economy reduced to to scams, shams, schemes and dreams.

Sounds great for everybody but those who have, oh, a shred of dignity, honesty, or integrity.

I will be happy to send a $4,000 dollar check to her campaign, though, if she will wire me (via Western Union) $1,700 to compensate for overpayment, to my offices in LAGOS, NIGERIA, care of OFFICER MOGABIKI.