Meg Whitman Did Not Vote For 28 Years

[Joanne98]

Run time: 00:31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hriqABUgQVk   Posted on YouTube: September 26, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 26, 2009 By DU Member: Joanne98 Views on DU: 1609

 

[babylonsister]

1. Wow. Why does she want to enter politics now since it appears she's

been so uninterested? This won't help her cause thankfully.

[loveable liberal]

2. I guess I'm missing the point....

Unless the point is that she didnt vote. Super.

[avaistheone1]

4. You sure are missing the point.

It shows that Whitman has not been a responsible citizen and that she has been disengaged from her civic responsibilities for almost three decades.

How is it possible Whitman can say that she is a responsible citizen yet nothing that has happened in this country on in the state of California has given her cause to go to the voting booth in almost thirty years?

With this revelation I think she is full of crap even more than I did before.

[jberryhill]

9. Were you planning to vote for her before this ad?

Whose mind will this ad change?

[MrModerate]

12. It definitely damages her credibility . . .

It makes it easy to paint her as a parvenu who's only interested in buying an office, and pretty much demolishes any argument she might make about "good governance."

[jberryhill]

3. So?

Meg Whitman is full of herself, but is this the most damaging criticism? Really?

Was she the deciding vote in any of these elections?

I guess the point is that she's not a good citizen or something, but, really this ad provides no useful information to voters trying to select a candidate whose views are representative of their own.

She didn't vote for Reagan, Bush, etc. Um, okay, I've been voting for decades and didn't vote for those folks either. Good on her.

[avaistheone1]

5. Not good on her at all.

It also shows that Meg Whitman did not vote for Carter, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or Obama. Nor did she go to the polls and vote for any third party candidate. The woman simply does not care about the world around her.

Whitman also had not been to the polls to vote on any issue federal or state in almost thirty years. No proposition or ballot measure was compelling enough for her to go to the ballot box and attempt to make a difference as a citizen.

Whitman's candidacy is an extremely wealthy woman's attempt to stroke her own vanity and expand her power.

[jberryhill]

8. Yes... and your last sentence would make a better line of attack...

This may surprise you, but I understand the idea of "not voting".

I still think it is a silly ad.

Here's the point....

You have a million dollars and 30 seconds to give me a reason to vote for a candidate. This ad does not provide a reason to vote for her opponent.

[t0dd]

6. Let me get this straight

Whitman wants to control one of the biggest and most troubled governments in the world, but she has been an absent citizen most of her adult life. You don't find that at all damaging? People will see her as disconnected from the process, which she is.

[jberryhill]

7. It's not very substantive...

Yes, political junkies will think it is important, for the reasons you state.

Whether not being one of a zillion voters counts as "politically disconnected"... eh.

To be clear, I think she's an ass for other reasons, but this one is just not that big a deal to spend advertising dollars on.

[LeftyMom]

13. Yeah, but they're not voting in the Republican primary.

She has to impress a primary electorate consisting largely of bluehairs and rabid conservatives. The former want dedication, the latter a true believer. Such an impressive record of not voting won't impress either.

[starroute]

10. It's not about voting so much as where her interest lies

The fact that she hasn't voted suggests she hasn't been following the issues and doesn't know anything about the personalities and alignments in the state legislature. But more than that, it implies she isn't particularly interested in or sympathetic towards the democratic process in general.

It's one thing to be a fed-up activist who avoids voting as a protest against a corrupt system. It's quite another to be a billionaire CEO who doesn't vote because you already have real power in your hands and have no interest in giving ordinary citizens a say.

This is about democracy -- and about the fact that America has managed to generate an elite which no longer believes in democracy. And in the absence of any overt statements to that effect, her lack of a voting record is the clearest possible testimony to where she stands.

[tomm2thumbs]

11. if mixed with: did she dodge Jury Duty, did she support Prop 8/187, oppose unions/healthcare etc

combining it with what she REALLY is interested in to contrast what she obviously wasn't interested in, you can show that this 'sudden intrigue is like someone suddenly being interested in collecting horses to race or collecting antique weather vanes. Sounds like her politics is a sign she considers it a rich-person's sport and she's doing it because she has money and wants to dabble in it for status and because she's bored with everything else.

Someone who is genuinely interested in the public good or issues will vote. Period. It is a basic commandment of civic duty. But, if one can show other instances where this run for governor can be shown as an obvious attempt to 'play politics' like kids would 'play house', she is gonna sink. I think doing good for your country is built into your blood and can't be artificially inspired. And certainly after not being entirely dis-interested for nearly three decades. This 'leader' shows little leadership in that arena to speak of.

Maybe she can go and collect faberge eggs, buy a sports team or something else. We need serious people for serious problems.