I don't think I've seen these idea being pushed in conservative circles, but many of you have accounts on conservative sites and if you agree with me you may spread it. Note that I'm not concern-trolling the conservatives here; this is what I truly believe. If Meg Whitman is elected Governor in 2010, she will pull whatever strings she can to ensure that Mitt Romney wins the Republican primary -- and gets a huge head start on the Republican nomination -- in 2012. (In return she may become his VP, but more likely that will go to a teabagger. She just wants to end up someplace where she can campaign for President herself.)
Why should we care about Republican Presidential politics? Because a lot of Republicans in California hate, hate, hate Mitt Romney -- usually for the wrong reasons (his religion and supposed moderation.) If they see voting for Meg as giving Romney a huge boost towards their nomination -- maybe they won't vote for Meg!
Note: I volunteer for, but do not here speak for, the Brown campaign, the Democratic Party, or anyone else. Any madness expressed is solely my own.
So, you may be wondering, am I just making stuff up here? Those of you who closely follow California politics (or who subscribe to Romney Fancy magazine, which to my knowledge does not actually exist, but if it does, Meg is a backer) probably know that I'm not just talking out of my hat. For example -- well, what's your take on this?
What if you held a voter turnout rally and the top candidates on the ballot didn’t show up?
Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, and Sarah Palin, arguably the biggest draw in the Republican Party, found themselves in that position here in Orange County on Saturday night in the first of two high-profile national rallies they are doing before Election Day. The next one is in Orlando, Fla., next week.
Mr. Steele and Ms. Palin (particularly Ms. Palin) packed a ballroom at a hotel complex just outside Disneyland.
But the two Republicans at the top of the California ticket — Meg Whitman, the candidate for governor, and Carly Fiorina, the candidate for Senate — skipped the event, both claiming prior commitments. That said, Ms. Palin is a decidedly unpopular figure in the state, particularly with independent voters, and Republicans said it was probably not a good idea for Ms. Whitman or Ms. Fiorina to be seen at a campaign rally with her this close to Election Day.
Didn't want to be seen with Palin, did she? Even at a get-out-the-vote rally devoted largely to her own candidacy? Yes, she couldn't go because of a prior commitment, all right -- a prior commitment to Mitt Romney.
Still not convinced? Here, what about this story on her, um, "conflict" that kept her away from the range of Palin's sharp fingernails? This echoes what she said in the third debate:
Whitman also weighed in on Sarah Palin, who was visiting Sacramento on Friday as well and will hold a rally Saturday in Anaheim. Whitman is not scheduled to appear with the former vice presidential candidate and has said scheduling conflicts are keeping the two apart.
Asked whether she thought Palin was qualifed to be president, Whitman said: "Technically, she’s qualified to be president because you have to be a U.S. citizen and be in good standing. I think the voters of the United States are going to decide who's going to be the next Republican nominee and there's going to be a lot of competition for that."
She added: "I’ll probably be for Mitt Romney as I was for the last cycle before I helped out John McCain."
"Technically, she is qualified...." I don't know, Meg, have you seen her birth certificate? Seriously, if you're a California teabagger you should read this and say to yourself "we have to nip this menace in the bud." And by "nip," I mean "obliterate." So -- let's make sure that lots of the read it! Can we do that? Do we still have the juice to spread a meme? It's for their own good! How is someone like Huckabee going to get past snarling Meg Whitman? She knows what he'd bought on eBay!!
Oh, I hear you -- you're still not convinced. That "probably" in that statement means that you have some doubts. Maybe that's because you don't know the full history between Mitt and Meg. Here's a generally laudatory article on their alliance from the Daily Beast; I'll excerpt it here but you really should read the whole thing to see their experience at Bain Capital, Romney's private equity firm that recently hired her troubled older son.
Last summer, Meg Whitman traveled to Boston to visit her mother and during that trip she made a detour north to Mitt Romney’s home on Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire. She had launched a gubernatorial exploratory committee, but hadn’t officially thrown her hat into the ring in the race to be California’s governor. She wanted some advice from her old friend, mentor, and boss Romney. He had already backed her that April, that wasn’t a question, but she wanted some counsel from Romney and his wife, Ann, before returning to California and officially launching her bid a few weeks later in September.
Romney was actually the first to suggest to Whitman that she should run for governor of California.
...
“To me the deep personal friendship is obvious in their interactions,” says Stutzman. “Let me put it this way I’ve seen plenty of surrogates or people show up to campaign with somebody and it’s one thing behind closed doors and you walk out and you throw the switch on and they are glad to be their with their best friend so and so, but behind closed doors you can tell Mitt is still really glad to be there with his very good friend Meg and Meg is delighted and energized when Mitt is with her on the campaign, especially in private. Just his presence is a boost for her.”
...
Although Romney may want Whitman to take the statehouse because of their friendship it’s clear that an ally in California come 2012 would be very helpful to him ahead of another likely attempt at the presidency.
Wouldn't it be nice to spread this insight around? For Tea Partiers who expect to support Palin or Huckabee or Pawlenty or someone else now making moon eyes at them, a vote for Whitman in 2010 is a vote against their own interests in 2010. Shouldn't they think this through?