Former eBay chief Meg Whitman, a Republican candidate for governor in next year's election, hasn't voted much in elections. Do you think her spotty voting record will hurt her campaign to succeed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger?
The Sacramento Bee reported that Whitman didn't vote in the 2003 gubernatorial recall election, "even after Business Week listed her among a group of top executives with 'worse than spotty voting records' in a 2000 magazine story."
Whitman will face state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former Congressman Tom Campbell in the GOP primary.
Here's more on Whitman's voting record from the Sac Bee story:
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."In fact, however, a Bee review found Whitman regularly skipped elections in California and several other states where she lived and worked.
The review covered six states and a dozen counties, including towns and counties in Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, New Jersey, Rhode Island and California where public records indicated that Whitman lived, worked or attended college.
Every citizen should vote yes but if they don't it should not be held against them. If there is something that doesn't captivate my attention or is too shady I won't vote on it. Voting is a right and privilege but is not mandatory.
Obviously, it’s important to vote ????? ... the ideal is to do so; but God knows, that I’ve had to talk myself into voting more than several times these last few years! Nothing EVER seems to change ... & I’m wondering if it EVER makes a difference!
I don’t know much about Whitman, but she obviously has great business experience and NOBODY in Sacramento obviously does!
I beg to differ fellow conservatives...I heard her on KMJ today and she kept spanking herself for not even registering and the more she talked the more obvious it was that she never took her civic duty seriously...so why now?I get teary eyed when I contemplate the sacrifices that families have made to give me that right and see nonvoting as not justifiable...then as if to excuse herself she jumps on Poizner for either himself or his wife writing a check to Al Gore's campaign...how refreshing.
I suppose if enough people read The Bee it will create a tidal wave of reaction. I'm still digesting the significance of Jim's perceived nuance in Mr. Kudlow's remarks (whoever he is.)
Meanwhile there is alot about the Republican hopefuls that need improvement before any get my vote. I can't help but have the feeling that we are about to be offered a tray of "what is electable" to choose from, not what is needed. It is time for a contract before candidates in the local, state, and national contests get too big for their britches. My developing inclination is to not vote for exercise. I already have a real treadmill, part of my own private HMO. Unfortunately in some of the last few elections, what was electable in hindsite was not worth the energy filling out that portion of an absentee ballot. I have expressed my disgust with Schwarzenegger numerous times now, a sure way to eliminate a candidate from my list...just let him on stage with you one time, thats all it will take. I did not vote for McCain after he did, I chose a write in candidate that had no chance of winning, but who was the better choice in my mind. I honestly don't feel the need to vote against somebody either. There are alot of folks who have learned "be careful what you vote for," spoke to one more yesterday. That should give the conservative base some momentum in producing quality candidates with traditional values. I hope they are listening.
Given the quality of most of the candidates that have been elected recently, maybe she made the right choice.
I don't know anything about Meg Whitman. However, her spotty voting record says one thing to me and it is positive. She clearly is not a career politician. A career politician would have voted just so their record looked good. Her entrance into politics is more likely prompted by her wanting to make a difference; new insight, fresh approach. Apparently she saw something that needed changing and has stepped up to try and make it happen. If politics for the sake of politics was her goal all along, she would have dutifully voted in each election. Her only mistake is profusely apologizing for missing elections. Let it go, it is a right. It is not mandatory.
"Will Whitman's voting record hurt her?"
Probably not. According to one theory, not bothering to participate in the most vital phase of democracy, until you are ready to run for office yourself, , makes you an even better qualified candidate. You just have to hope that the voters are not like you, and don't bother to vote. This is strictly a personal preference, but the two Lawson elders are not choosing another California woman. Just look at their record. Much too busy to tend to the PEOPLE's business.