A couple of Sundays ago. the San Jose Mercury News ran a front page story with the headline, “Megasaurus’ $150 Million Bid For Governor.” What’s a Megasaurus? Is it fair for the newspaper to attach such a label to Meg Whitman, a serious candidate for Governor of California?
Meg Whitman is a human being, not a monster. The “Megasaurus” label creates a new identity and image that is not altogether pleasant. The nickname is now in play, thanks not to Whitman’s political opponents, but to employees of the newspaper. Supporters of Jerry Brown should be pleased, and his campaign owes the Merc a note of thanks.
The story read, “...Several weeks into the new year, when Meg Whitman’s statewide TV ad campaign began, the Megasaurus was born and quickly began devouring the political landscape.” The article continued, “‘She’s vomiting money,’ said one media consultant who didn’t want to be quoted by name because, well, he’d like to one day get in on the action.”
That Meg Whitman is spending truckloads of money on her campaign is an issue that should receive full and continued coverage by the press. But can’t that job be done without name calling? Use of the “Megasaurus” label is not just an insult to Ms. Whitman, it’s an insult to the Mercury News’ readers who clearly would not have read the article if the headline had been, “Whitman’s $150 Million Bid For Governor.”
Opinion
What’s a Megasaurus?
/ 15
Well Pete, since you are concerned with issues of fairness, is is “fair” for Whitman to spend $150 million is those hit pieces against her opponent in the Republican primary? Where’s your sense of outrage on that?
Frankly, I don’t like ANY of the candidates much, but those sleazy “Don’t trust Poizner” ads are a classic example of a negative campaign.
She STARTED the name calling!
Whitman is a non-voter with no political experience and an absolute fear of having to answer questions about important issues. Yet she thinks she’s somehow qualified to lead the largest state in the US, and is attempting to buy her way into office.
In that context I would agree that “Megasaurus” is not the correct pejorative.
I prefer “Nutmeg.”
> “‘She’s vomiting money,’ said one media consultant who didn’t want to be quoted by name because, well, he’d like to one day get in on the action.”
> That Meg Whitman is spending truckloads of money on her campaign is an issue that should receive full and continued coverage by the press.
Turning the dials of my “Way Back Machine” back to 2008 . . . .
Well, whaddiya know! Baracka Hussein Obama, President for Life of the United States spent SIX HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS getting elected to the post of Top Community Organizer.
I don’t recall hearing anyone reporting that the Obama campaign was “vomiting money”.
Oh, and by the way, The Community Organizer’s organizaton reportedly couldn’t organize the necessary accounting and disclosure reports relating to an estimated ONE QUARTER of the election funds that came from, shall we say, “shadowy” foreign sources.
Not to be too blunt about it, but it kind of looks like the top Democrat office holder spent more ILLEGAL money than Meg Whitman spent in total.
Is anyone offended?
Didn’t think so.
Barack Obama raised money from supporters. He didn’t spend a personal fortune to buy the office. There is a big difference. If we don’t question billionaires spending their own money, then we are basically saying that the incredibly rich have more access to elected office than everyone else.
Raising money from supporters shows a level of support from the public that suggests a strong base, something that Meg Whitman is not able to do. She is only able to spend boatloads of money to be on my TV and radio all day.
We are building a stadium in Santa Clara for Meg Whitman??? I am getting so many comments from Maoists like Mary Emerson, and the Cookie Bird at Save Santa Clara about billionaires and the stadium, I cannot figure whom do they mean?
> Barack Obama raised money from supporters. He didn’t spend a personal fortune to buy the office. There is a big difference. If we don’t question billionaires spending their own money, then we are basically saying that the incredibly rich have more access to elected office than everyone else.
Baracka didn’t spent HIS personal fortune to buy the office. George Soros spent HIS personal fortune to buy the office for him.
Presumably, Baracka is thankful, and might even show his gratitude in some way.
Also, a third of Baracka’s presidency purchase funds came from undocumented “foreign” contributions.
The Rothschilds?
City of London Bankers?
Chi-Coms?
Little old cleaning ladies in Manchester who contributed their pennies because they wanted to see Americans have government health care as wonderful as their own?
Also, Obama was running for President of the United States, a job requiring considerably more campaigning that Governor of a state, even of a large state.
And we never get rid of the sneers that that Obama was once a community organizer, do we? So what? Sarah Palin was once a beauty pageant contestant. Community organizers actually have a tough and challenging job: all the expectations and required skills of political office with none of the institutional support.
> And we never get rid of the sneers that that Obama was once a community organizer, do we?
Nope. Sneers are still on the program.
And moreover, as Rush pointed out, Baracka is a lousy community organizer.
He couldn’t organize the passage of his Obama-care bill, so he had bribe, threaten, and lie to people as he did with the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Stupak Sucker Punch, and oh yes, the “open negotiations broadcast live on CSPAN”, and the 72 hour posting of proposed legislation on the internet.
Baracka has spent all of his goodwill, called in all his chits, and bribed everyone who is bribable to get is bogus “healthcare reform” passed. There is nothing left in the tank.
In six months, he is going to lose control of Congress, and the beating is going to be so bad that even the remaining Dems will consider impeaching his skinny butt so they don’t have to look forward to another trainwreck in 2012.
Journalism!
I think if you’re going to use almost as much of your own funds to run for Governor of California, as Ross Perot used to run for President in 1992, then its perfectly fine & dandy for the Mercury News to call you out on it, including the use of a mildly derogatory nickname. Of course, I’m for Steve Poizner….
Pete, do you seriously believe that anybody working for the Merc could have come up with such a clever name?!
What do you expect from a paper with a liberal bias like the Merc?
It gets even funnier. I support Jerry Brown who was my former boss at the California Democratic Party, but I think Meg has a right to spend her money. Indeed, Chris Kolterman and Mary Emerson in their shrewish way are attacking the 49ers while at the same time both are sending fundraising letters to San Francisco politicians and paying their own board members under the table. At least Meg is open about it.
She has every right to spend her own money. And the Merc has every right to criticize her for choosing to opt to exercise that right. There are lots of things you and I have every right to do, yet we still probably should not. I love my dogs, but I have every right to take them down to the vet and have them gassed to death. Fortunately for them, I’d rather die than do that. Saying someone has a right to do something is not the same thing as providing a rationale as to why they ought to be doing it. I’m sure many people would agree that MEGabucks Whitman ought not to be trying to purchase the Governor’s office, irrespective of the fact she is within her legal rights to do so.
Grow up, or shut up, Pete.
Just what the state needs another quadrilllion air telling us how they are going to fix the budget. didn’t you pub’s go through this with the latest and greatest Swarztenspelland his proposals that sank the state budget?