Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sharron Angle Republicans

When calling for repeal of health reform, most Republican officials and candidates soften the implications of the suggestion by adding that there are some provisions in the law they like, such as the mandate that insurance companies cover those with preexisting conditions.

So it's noteworthy when you find a Republican who's willing to come out against that provision.

Renee Ellmers, who's running a competitive race against Dem Rep. Bob Etheridge in North Carolina's second district, not only opposes mandates for coverage of preexisting conditions, but she also opposes mandates for coverage of maternity care, according to the Clayton News Star:

She said she was opposed to having the government mandate that insurers must accept customers with pre-existing conditions.

"Let the private insurance companies decide how they're going to handle the pre-existing conditions situation," she said.

She also questioned whether all insurance customers should have to help pay for maternity care. The health-insurance industry typically considers pregnancy a pre-existing condition.

"Maternity coverage -- that's another one. ... Should you have to pay for someone else's [maternity care]? Maybe you've decided you've had your children, or maybe we have a 35-year-old female who's had a hysterectomy. Should she have to pay maternity coverage? Maternity coverage is very costly," Ellmers said.

This would put Ellmers -- who happens to be a nurse -- squarely in Sharron Angle territory. Angle, recall, recently said:

"How about maternity leave? I'm not gonna have any more babies, but I sure get to pay for it on my insurance. Those are the kinds of things that we want to get rid of."

Maybe it's time for a special Sharron Angle/Nurses Against Maternity Coverage Caucus?

By Greg Sargent  | September 30, 2010; 11:11 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Health reform, House GOPers, Senate Republicans, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Confronting Islamophobic conspiracy theories

Comments

I am a Sharron Angle Republican too!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

At least our gracious host is not posting daily Sharron Angle threads any more ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:13 AM
.
....................
Oops. JakeD2 wants his "gracious host" award returned to him.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Jesus wept.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 30, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

"Daily" = every day.

We now return to your regularly-scheduled pogrom.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

How selfish, small and petty can someone be?

Remember when Christians used to be for healing the sick and feeding the poor? When did that change to scr#wing the poor, p!ssing on the sick and buying a BMW?

I'm guessing then that insurance shouldn't cover breast cancer either, right? Because I don't have breasts, insurance companies shouldn't have to worry about it for anyone, right?

And we KNOW how insurance companies will deal with pre-existing conditions if they have their way: They will take your premium payments until you get sick, then boot you out and go buy a Mercedes.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

What a selfish piece of garbage this Ellmers nutbag is. Fortunately she's going to get trounced.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 30, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I am still waiting for Quitter Palin to express outrage at what Sharron Angle said about not wanting to take care of the needs of Special Care Children.

Remember when Quitter Palin went ballistic over something Rahm said about bloggers, and how she felt it was demeaning to her special needs child.

Well, why is Quitter Palin silent now, that Sharron Angle has said something far more directly demeaning about children with special needs?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

nisleib:

You are aware that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is now saying that breast cancer treatment using Avastin will no longer be covered under ObamaCare, right? This is exactly what we were warning about. Just because we don't want FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in healthcare, doesn't mean we lack compassion toward the sick.

CHRISTIANS don't depend on the government to fufill the Great Commission either.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Well, why is Quitter Palin silent now, that Sharron Angle has said something far more directly demeaning about children with special needs?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 11:33 AM

~~~~~~~

Why? Because IOKIYAR.

If you believe any of the faux outrage coming out of Sarah's blow hole you are, well, I know you don't, so I won't finish that sentence. You are too smart for that.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse


I took down Weigel, and changed Cillizza's comments to nothing more than a Twitter feed, so it can't hurt to try it again.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:31 AM |
......................


Attention Greg,

He has just admitted that he is only here to sabotage and destroy your blogsite.

I would not allow him to do so. It is your blog. You have every right to blockout someone who admits that they are here just to destroy the site. You owe it to all of your readers to not let that happen.

Shackle and Isolate the self admitted Blog Terrorist.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I think soon to be Rep. Elmers will spend the first half of her term tending to  Rep. Ethridge's victims.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/relax--_rep_bob_etheridges_ass.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 30, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

LOL Liam-still:

I'm also here to provide the definitions for simple words like "Daily" = every day.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

What Meg Whitman actually said in the debate with Jerry Brown was; "Employers must be held accountable for making sure that they are not hiring illegal workers."

What she said, when the news broke about her maid of nine years was. "Don't hold me, Meg Whitman, her employer accountable. I never verified if she was legal or not. I just had her work for me for nine years."

Typical Right Wing excuse making: hold all other employers accountable for who they employ, but do not hold Meg to the same standards that she demanded of all other employers.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Jake - Yeah, I get it. You don't lack compassion; you just want people to get better via prayer, not medicine. If that doesn't work than God must want them dead.

Republican Compassion = Screwing those who aren't worth as much as you are.

And why was Avastin removed from coverage? Could it be because Avastin, according to its makers, does NOT work?

~~~~~~~

There are no data available showing that Avastin improves disease-related symptoms or survival in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer.

http://blogs.forbes.com/robertlangreth/2010/09/17/why-the-avastin-breast-cancer-controversy-roches-own-news-release-tells-you/

~~~~~~~~

So you, Jake, are saying that the Government should pay for drugs that even the drugs makers say doesn't work? This is why Republicans shouldn't be allowed to control government; it is all about funneling money to corporations for the GOP, not about results.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Why? Because IOKIYAR.

If you believe any of the faux outrage coming out of Sarah's blow hole you are, well, I know you don't, so I won't finish that sentence. You are too smart for that.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 11:35 AM
............

It still never hurts to remind people of what a hypocrite Quitter Palin is, and how she uses her Special Needs Son, as a partisan political prop, to attack Democrats only.

By the way; where is The First Dude? How come he has no shown up to support his dancing daughter?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

What proof is there that Ms Whitman reasonably could have known that the housekeeper was in America illegally?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 30, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Liar.

Whitman's campaign posted on-line the documents she used to VERIFY she was in the country legally, including the employment applications filled out when the housekeeper was hired in 2000, a copy of the Social Security card and California driver's license. Whitman didn't know the housekeeper was in the country illegally until the day she fired her: "we specified with the agency we wanted to make sure we had someone who was here legally to work in the United States."

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

1. Stupid, selfish GOP candidate utters nonsense.

2. People call her on it.

3. Trolls defend her not on substance but due to the fact that she is in their ideological party.

4. We argue with them even though it won't make any difference, since the original problem was the selfish, stupid candidate and her ideas.

5. Boring.

6. Let's talk about something else.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 30, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

That last post was to Liar-still.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Jake - I thought you were talking to yourself.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Meg Whitman, said in the debate with Jerry Brown, that Employers must be held accountable for making sure that people they hire, are here legally.

She said that she employed the maid for 9 years, but never checked to make sure that she was here legally.


Anyone who can not see the contradiction in those two statements, made within twenty four hours of each other, by Meg Whitman, is just an excuse making partisan hack.

Meg Whitmen spelled out the standards of verifictation accountability that she would hold all Employers to, and then turned right around, and exempted herself from her own documentation verification standards.

What part of she never bothered to check if the woman was here legally do you not understand. She just took her word for it.

Well, isn't that what Meg Whitmen said, she would not accept as an excuse from all other employers. She said they must be held accountable for verifying that those they hire have not presented false documentation.

If employers can just take the word of those they employ, that they are here legally, and never take any steps to verify if that is the truth, then how can they be held accountable by Meg Whitman?

Meg, Do As I Say, Not As I Do, Whitman: a fierce foe of illegal workers, unless they work for her.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

All, new Adam Serwer post on confronting Islamophobia:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/confronting_islamophobic_consp.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 30, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Meg Whitman, said in the debate with Jerry Brown, that Employers must be held accountable for making sure that people they hire, are here legally.

She said that she employed the maid for 9 years, but never checked to make sure that she was here legally.


Anyone who can not see the contradiction in those two statements, made within twenty four hours of each other, by Meg Whitman, is just an excuse making partisan hack.

Meg Whitmen spelled out the standards of verifictation accountability that she would hold all Employers to, and then turned right around, and exempted herself from her own documentation verification standards.

What part of she never bothered to check if the woman was here legally do you not understand. She just took her word for it.

Well, isn't that what Meg Whitmen said, she would not accept as an excuse from all other employers. She said they must be held accountable for verifying that those they hire have not presented false documentation.

If employers can just take the word of those they employ, that they are here legally, and never take any steps to verify if that is the truth, then how can they be held accountable by Meg Whitman?

Meg, Do As I Say, Not As I Do, Whitman: a fierce foe of illegal workers, unless they work for her.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

All I've seen so far is a desperation gambit featuring a rabid lefty.

Govenor moonbeam must be frightened to invoke this silly ploy so early in the campaign.

further, what's the liberal position on sanctuary cities? Are illegals welcome to live there according to liberal doctrine? If so, how, exactly, are they supposed to provide themselves with food, clothing and shelter? Or is it also part of liberal dogma that illegals have rights to American largesse via the welfare system?

And again I'm asking for proof. Haven't seen anything yet. But hey, I'm a patient man.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 30, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Meg set the standards in the debate. A day later she said, don't hold me those standards that I set for all other employers. I never bothered to check. I am the employer, but blame the agency that sent her to me, to interview and decide if I should hire her. I never checked if she was telling truth about if she was authorized to work in this country. I could not be bothered behaving like all those other employers must behave.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Angle and her husband receive their health insurance and pension through the federal government b/c her husband was employed by the Bureau of Land Mgmt for 25 years.
Since she renounces federal health insurance she and her husband should be called upon to join jake and refuse to take either federal healthcare or a federal pension, now. To do otherwise would expose her utter hypocrisy in bashing the fedral government. Burn that federal health inusrance card Ms. Angle, refuse that federal pension, let's see what you are made of.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 30, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

back to the topic Mr Sargent raised. In response to this:
============
Remember when Christians used to be for healing the sick and feeding the poor? When did that change to scr#wing the poor, p!ssing on the sick and buying a BMW===========

Remember when liberals at least pretended to think straight?

the underlying assumption in the crapola quoted above can be summed up this way: If you don't support the liberal methods then you are in support of loading babies into box cars with a pitchfork.

What nonsense. What bigotry.

it is small wonder that the left is getting hammered by the American public just now. Sneering nasty condescencion just doesn't sell very well. VDH has an excellent review of some of the more condescending statements made by prominent liberals of late. Here's a great example:
"“Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics.”"

yeah, right. According to Ms Obama, we are just sooooo lucky that the smartest guy in the universe took time out from his hectic schedule to play POTUS for a while.

so keep right on talking liberals. You're killing your own chances.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 30, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

jake thought you and Ms. Whitman were big supporters of E Verify.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 30, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

What you are lying about, Liam-still, is that she "never bothered to check." She CHECKED the proper documents, as required under law, in the I-9 "Employment Eligibility Verification" form.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Angle is just another R who has confirmed the accuracy of Grayson's visual aid on the House floor.

The R plan...get sick and die!!!

The R plan...Let them eat cake!

BG you are correct about responding to trolls. But one has identified himself as a truly pathological wacko out to destroy this blog. Anybody who responds to Jake is aiding and abetting a blog terrorist who obviously needs some serious mental help. And I say this without snark but pity for this poor individual. In the most literal non hyperbolic sense...he has a genuine problem..we should respond nor should we pick on him.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 30, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

nisleib:

No, I do not lie. As for Avastin, it HAS been proven to increase what’s called progression-free survival (how long before the breast cancer spreads or grows), for at least a month depending on which chemo agent it was paired with. Now, that may not be a big deal to you, but those of us "lacking compassion" for the sick actually do think it's worth $88,000 per year to give terminal patients a better quality of life during their last few months.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7

See Greg's comment on the new thread. We got his attention, regarding the threat made by the admitted vandalizer of blogs.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

anyone can sign an I-9 you know that.

Ms. Whittman has told us repeatedly that all businesses should be using the federal E Verify system to verify the legal status of employee.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD

It is obvious that both Ms. Whittman and Ms. Angle do not live up to their own standards. Ms. Angle lives off of federal healthcare and a federal pensions she rails against and Ms. Whittman is incapable of voting or using E Verify that she insists all Americans use. What Hypocrits.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 30, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Meg Whitman could not even be bothere to vote in elections, until she decided that she was the leader that California needed.

Be like Meg. Don't bother to voter for her, just like she did not bother to vote in almost all elections through her entire adult life.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Jake - If you click on the link to the Forbes article I've provided you will find that Avastin, according to its makers, does not work on breast cancer.

Its own makers say it doesn't work, yet you want the Gov to pay for it? This is the kind of thinking that gives tax breaks to oil companies when oil companies are recording the largest profits in the history of the world. It is also the reason so very many people think the GOP lacks an once of credibility on fiscal matters.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

nisleib:

I'm well aware of the Roches / FDA trials. Even if it doesn't work to increase survival, it DOES improve the quality of life during the patients' last few months.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Connect the dots:

The next Brown/Whitman debate is a Spanish language debate.

Brown leads Whitman by 19 points among California Hispanic likely voters.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 30, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Jake @ 12:44- No, it does not.

~~~~

There are no data available showing that Avastin improves disease-related symptoms or survival in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer.

~~~~~

Note that it says, "disease-related symptoms". It is a placebo, at least for breast cancer, it has other uses.

Also, if you acually read the link, it goes on to say,

~~~~

But Roche has been unable to prove that this translates into something meaningful for the patient like living longer or feeling better.

~~~~~

You see? It does NOT, apparently, make people FEEL better.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

@skipsailing: "What proof is there that Ms Whitman reasonably could have known that the housekeeper was in America illegally?"

While always possible, and perhaps even credible, I find that the staged melodrama of the accusations felt very scripted. And strange. If I'm not mistaken, her former housekeeper is saying that Meg Whitman had proof that she--the former housekeeper--had some problem with her fake social security number that she--the former housekeeper--acquire illegally in order to fool Meg Whitman into thinking that the former housekeeper was not illegal, and that Meg Whitman's failing to follow up on this thing (how did the former housekeeper know, exactly, anyway, what was going on there?) was something more than, say, taking her housekeepers word that she was, in fact, here legally?

It's the time for October surprises. I take everything with a huge grain of salt--yes, even the O'Donnell accusations, but sometimes there is actually fire where there's smoke. Even stopped clocks are right twice a day, as they say.

I consider this type of campaigning to be extremely low in nature (like, for example, a certain GOP gubernatorial candidates accusations of Andrew Cuomo's marital fidelity) and regard it (some O'Donnell apologists opinions aside) with tremendous skepticism.

"the underlying assumption in the crapola quoted above can be summed up this way: If you don't support the liberal methods then you are in support of loading babies into box cars with a pitchfork."

Quoted from a different skipsailing comment, but agreed. I find this approach extraordinarily non-compelling (no matter who is advancing it) and wonder what the goal is. They certainly aren't trying to win hearts and minds. Or engage in a thoughtful and objective analysis of competing ideologies and policies.

So . . . self-congratulatory mental-m@sterbation? And what would O'Donnell have to say about that, I wonder . . .

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

nisleib:

Roche (attorneys) are simply covering their client's butt -- there are SOME benefits to Avastin -- maybe we are talking over each other due to "advanced HER2-negative" breast cancer. There's at least ONE type of terminal breast cancer that Avastin can increase the progression-free period (again "how long before cancer spreads or grows") if not actual long-term survival. As always, there are risks. Some patients will experience higher rates of hypertension, hemorrhaging, bowel perforations, and other side effects. Depending on the patient, it may be better to NOT take Avastin. For some, it IS worth it.

Regardless "[t]o some advocates, progression-free survival without an increase in overall survival is still welcome, since it suggests patients have a better quality of life during their last months."

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/27/why-the-fda-may-reverse-course-on-avastin.html

Why can't you have a little "compassion"?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Jake - Get real. It doesn't heal the sick, nor does it make the sick feel better. The company admits it.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

curious kevin since you choose to close your eyes to the normal procedures in the business world where employers use the federal E Verfy system why you feel that a CEO didn't have the common sense to do what any reasonable employer would have done to very her immigration status. It is clear that you and Ms. Whittman have double standards when it comes to immigration compliance.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 30, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman1: curious kevin since you choose to close your eyes to the normal procedures in the business world where employers use the federal E Verfy system"

Is that available to folk employing housekeepers? I'm asking because I really don't know. Is that common, for people hiring house keepers to use the Federal E Verify system?

"why you feel that a CEO didn't have the common sense to do what any reasonable employer would have done to very her immigration status."

I must admit, I don't know all the details. I just remain skeptical of October-surprise accusations. I have for a long time, and I probably always will be.

"It is clear that you and Ms. Whittman have double standards when it comes to immigration compliance."

Yes, that's obvious. Because of my stringent immigration compliance standards, which are well known to all. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

It still never hurts to remind people of what a hypocrite Quitter Palin is, and how she uses her Special Needs Son, as a partisan political prop, to attack Democrats only.

Posted by: Liam-still
______________________

And it never hurts to remind people that Quitter Obama (who quite his job and gave IL Burris) uses his kids only when it suits him to make money.

So your point is?

Posted by: Bailers | September 30, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

They should call themselves the love the fetus hate the child and mom caucus.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | September 30, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"E-Verify is an electronic program through which employers verify the employment eligibility of their employees after hire. The program was authorized by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). In short, employers submit information taken from a new hire's Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification Form) through E-Verify to the Social Security Administration and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to determine whether the information matches government records and whether the new hire is authorized to work in the United States.

E-Verify is administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, Verification Division, and the Social Security Administration. The USCIS Verification Division is dedicated to providing program support, administering unparalleled customer service to both employers and workers, developing innovative technological solutions, and performing community outreach to further the mission of E-Verify. By extension, we facilitate federal agency and employer compliance with U.S. immigration law."

give me a break kevin, are you suggeting that a CEO doesn't know about E Verify. If she is unaware of this federal program that in itself should disqualify her to be a Governor of the 6th largest economy in the world.

.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 30, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

She is well-aware of the E-Verify program and is trying to get it expanded, and MANDATORY, for all employers (currently, it is not).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

that is a joke right jake? She is aware of it, is an ex CEO, and demands compliance for everyone but herself. So her excuse is that it wasn't mandated so even though she was running on an anti immigration platform she didn't think it necessary to voluntarily check out her own employee. That is about the lamest excuse anyone has ever heard next to O'Donnell claiming she had no idea what was on her LinkedIn page.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 30, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman,

Something to consider and connect the dots. The next Brown/Whitman debate is on spanish language radio. Brown leads Whitman 19 points with Hispanics. Kevin is skeptical about October surprises, and I am too.

Now, I'm not saying Whitman isn't guilty of a double standard--no doubt she is. But, I think this story (which may be true) puts her away with Hispanic voters.

BTW, Boxer leads Fiorina even more with hispanic voters--30 points about.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 30, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

my point goes way beyond the hispanic vote.
it goes to compitence/vetting. You would think Whittman, who is far from stupid, would have run all of her employees and servants and I am sure there are many, through criminal background checks and e verify prior to her annoucning her candidacy. It is more likely than not that she didn't run these rather routine background checks BEFORE deciding to blow $120 million b/c she knew that voters and certainly conservative Rs in San Diego would not have tolerated her as their nominee had they previously dicovered that she had hired an illegal to work for her and did nothing about it until she was caught. She deserves all of the bad press she is getting b/c she is either incompitent or a liar; take your pick.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 30, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe she ran the background checks. It's California. If everyone ran the background checks in California, they'd get nothing done with the firing and hiring it would cause.

Look, Meg didn't even vote. She ran background checks? NOT. Now, she may have a paper trail that protects her, that I would not doubt.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 30, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

The other subtext on this immigration story is one that has been playing in CA for some time. That is the rich-as-God woman who treats her employees badly. There's the employee-slap suit which Ebay paid off. There's the stories of her son who hit somebody, broke her ankle, who mom bailed out. Then the stories of the snotty sons who flaunt their money. Now, the crying maid who says she was treated badly. People in CA are connecting those dots. I hear it all the time now on the talk shows.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 30, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

This is the same Tea Party Traitor who also called for the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government of the United States, if they lose in November.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | September 30, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman: "give me a break kevin, are you suggeting that a CEO doesn't know about E Verify. If she is unaware of this federal program that in itself should disqualify her to be a Governor of the 6th largest economy in the world."

No, I was asking whether it's common for people at any level to use E Verify to check out their housekeepers? I'm not in the position to being hiring housekeepers, so I wouldn't know.

Just curious. There are better folks than me working on getting the actual details out. It just sounds odd, to me.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

It just sounds odd, to me.
-----------------------
Me too. I'm not surprised she had an illegal working for her for 9 years. I would not be surprised that Meg didn't overzealously check her status. I also wouldn't be surprised if the maid had supplied fictitious info.

But the timing of the disclosure is curious.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 30, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

its called vetting. Certainly she knows about E Verify. Its voluntary but a simple proces and is an affirmative defense for businesses who check and have inadvertantly hired illegal workers. Politically speaking its common sense and as I posted earlier I am sure that the Ca GOP especially those in San Diego presumed that she would have done this simple check BEFORE deciding to run to govern the 6th largest economy or blowing $119 million. Dumb, dumb, dumb.I am sure you remember Zoe Baird who was selected to be Clinton's AG when she forgot to pay taxes on her maid. Saying I didn't know or that it was not mandatory or I forgot to do a background check is just not going to cut ir with voters. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 30, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

the Democrats must surely be desperate.

this Meg Whitman "issue" is laughable.

Let's think about this.

First we must consider the source. an aggrieved former employee hurls accusations while standing next to a radical "lawyer" who is widely known for this kind of political circus performance.

who should we believe? Should we believe an illegal alien who lied to her employer and sustained that lie for nine long years? Or should we believe the lady who met with great success in the business world and won a tough primary battle for the privledge of campaigning for the governorship?

And the nonsense about E verify is laughable. Again, pause to think. this lady was hired by Ms Whitman in 2000. E verify was just not available. There was a pilot program but it was not really ready.

further, Ms Whitman did comply with the requirement to complete a I 9. If she had something to hide would she do that?

And what of the illegal housekeeper. She provided a bogus SSN. Whose identity did she steal? Whose credit got hammered so that she could present false documents to her employer?

As for the stories about poor treatment, again, all we have is the word of an illegal immigrant against that of a prominent citizen. Would anybody buy into this nonsense if the illegal said "she treated me well but I'm going to lie about her anyway"?

How many of you recall the hit job the Democrats laid on Arnold? It is typical. they can't win on the merits of the candidate, or on the merits of their policies, so all that is left is cheap shot smear tactics.

Are the liberals who comment here proud of the fact that the Democrat party has descended to this depth of depravity?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 30, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman,

You know I'm not a Meg supporter. But what actual electoral harm will be done to her by this? She's not getting the hispanic vote anyway and will lose some over this kerfuffle. What about her base? Is this going to damage her with GOP and conservatives? Probably not. Then, there are independents--now it may hurt her there. It does undermine her competence biography when she doesn't check out her own employees (she could have had ebay check them out for her). This race is a race about biographies--Meg's competent successful business bio vs Jerry's long and successful government bio.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 30, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The discloser came now, because Meg fired the woman, after she realized that her illegal status could blow up in Meg's face.

She didn't want to know. It is hard for Meg to be selling her fantastic CEO experience, while at the same time saying, I was out of the loop when it came to hiring my personal house maid.

It is not like this would be the first time, that a prominent politician got caught using illegal house staff, while raging against immigrants. Several stories like that have been widely reported for a decade or more, so Meg should at least have been alert enough to double check on her own maid's legality. At best; it reveals a careless approach to details, and at worst, it might show her to have used the agency, just to provide cover, so that she could hire some very cheap help, that would not be in any position to complain about being over worked, and under paid.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

As for the stories about poor treatment, again, all we have is the word of an illegal immigrant against that of a prominent citizen. Would anybody buy into this nonsense if the illegal said "she treated me well but I'm going to lie about her anyway"?
-----------------------
I think you are wrong about who voters will believe. In California, there has been, for months now, a subtext running about Meg-the-rich-as-God woman treating people badly. There is the story about the ebay employee who was paid off for the alleged Meg-slap. Then there are the stories about her sons, their arrogance, assault and bailouts by mom. Now, the "mistreated" maid. This is the part of the story that will resonate with voters. Obviously, Meg's base is not sensitive to that message. But undecideds, who are 1 in 5 in CA on this race, will be swayed.

Meg is already trailing Jerry by 19 points with hispanics. This puts her away with that voting demographic.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 30, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

The harm done to Whitman is exactly what you say--it causes voters to question just how competent is she? Does she really pay attention to details? Or is she simply an image? She didn't vote...now she wants to prosecute OTHER employers for illegals, but not herself.

Secondly, this will cost her what ever hispanic vote she was getting.

Third, it reinforces the subtext that Meg is an arrogant rich woman who treats her employees badly.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 30, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

It's not a "joke" leichtman1. I'm sure ALL of your clients go above and beyond what's required under the law, but out in California, lawyers get paid to determine what is the bare necessity.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

12bar I spend a lot of time in Coronado/San Diego not sure about you but whenever you try and engage a San Diegan about politics the verys first thing they want to tell you is what about illegal aliens. This hurts her more with her southern Ca antiillegals base then I think you realize. Her base already suspected that she was soft on illegal immigrants, this will seal the deal with them, realizing that she hired an illegal,regardless of her story. She is done with her base and not even blowing another $119 million will get her out of this box. My guess is that this story will linger in the southern Ca media until Nov 2, 2010. Just a hunch.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 30, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Every day that she has to play defense on this issue, is a good day for Jerry Brown.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

so your defense now of Ms. Whittman is that doing a thorough background check on her maid when she is running to be governor of the 6th largest economy in the world, is just too hard fro her. And that to expect a candidate to do simple due diligence that I as a non candidate do on my lawn service is just TOO HARD and that lawyers just do the bare necessity for their clients. Running a background check is just too hard for a woman wanting to be governor of Ca? And she expects Californians to vote for her while running on an anti illegal immigrant platform that can't bother to run simple background checks on her own employees. And as to just doing the bare essentials as a lawyer that certainly doesn't speak well for your client representation as an ex Ca lawyer (which has zero to do with Ms Whittman).
Its called rationalizing, jake. You have taken that skill to a whole new level.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 30, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

eg Whitman fired the Maid in July of 2010. Had Meg Whitman done what she has stated she expects all employers to do, and be held accountable for, she would not now be saying: I had nothing to do with her hiring. Sure she worked for me, for nine years, but blame the agency that send her to me, to apply for the job.

The agency just send her an applicant. They did not hire the woman. Meg Whitman did, and she should abide by the standards that she set for all others, in the recent debate; and just admit that she did not even try to verify if the woman's papers were legitimate.

Was it that easy for people to post and use fake identification, on Ebay, when Meg ran it. If it was not, then Meg should have fully known, that you must always take extra steps to verify that identity theft is not taking place.

Running the Ebay online Flea Market should have taught Meg to always be on guard against people trying to use stolen or false identities.

That makes the failure to check the woman's background, even more of a grievous performance failure, on the part of big time CEO Meg.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "The agency just send her an applicant. They did not hire the woman. Meg Whitman did, and she should abide by the standards that she set for all others, in the recent debate; and just admit that she did not even try to verify if the woman's papers were legitimate."

Did she have a reasonable expectation that the agency would be vetting this woman? Or even an unreasonable expectation? I know when I'm working on something, and we have a contractor do something, or another department does something, I expect them to take care of it, and I don't expect to have to go behind them and make sure they did everything they were supposed to.

I dunno. I'm not convinced. Might work, but might not. Clearly, the revelations are political (you think this ever would have come out if Whitman were not running for office) and demonstrate a belief that simply arguing policy is not enough, and that revelations of the tragic crime of employing Mexicans (tongue in cheek, but still, now she's bad for not constantly demanding her maids papers and then her backup papers? Wouldn't that be profiling? Isn't that what Arizona is doing, and it's bad?) will help nail her. And it's a win/win--taint Meg with the anti-illegal immigrant crowd and with Hispanics (since she was apparently not real nice to her maid, or at least not in the telling, now).

Not saying Meg wasn't negligent, or shouldn't have known better . . . I just sense folks are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Well, c'est la vie. I can't imagine a better thing happening to the Republican party in California than Jerry Brown becoming governor. Again.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 1, 2010 12:11 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company