L.A. NOW

Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

Should Jerry Brown personally apologize for Meg Whitman 'whore' remark?

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2010-08/55609817.jpg

6a00d8341c630a53ef013488024286970c-320wiJerry Brown himself has not made any formal public statements after The Times' Seema Mehta on Thursday revealed that someone in his campaign called Republican rival Meg Whitman a "whore" on an inadvertently recorded voice mail.

Now, Mehta is reporting that some Brown allies say the candidate for governor should make a public apology.

"It's inappropriate; it's just wrong," said Stephanie Schriock, the leader of EMILY'S List, a Democratic group dedicated to electing pro-choice women, on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers." Such words "just shouldn't be used anywhere by anyone, period. It is just not what our democracy is about. It's unfortunate to hear it in any place."

A Brown spokesman said the campaign did not plan to issue any other statement beyond its apology made Thursday.

What do you think? Should Brown address the issue himself? Share your views below.

Photo: Jerry Brown. Allen J. Shaben / Los Angeles Times

 
Comments () | Archives (94)

Jerry Brown has the eggs to put "character" in question? Has he had the opportunity to look in the mirror yet? Your funny Jerry. But your days are over. We need new leadership. Not staus quo.

Both of them are whores, so it doesn't really matter.

I guess no one can speak there minds anymore, what happen to freedom of speech.

Should he make a apology? For telling the truth i think not.

Whoever said the word should apologize. Did Brown say the word? No. Then he shouldn't apologize.

Personally, if an uninvolved third party apologized for an act committed against me by a third party, I would be insulted.

Thank you Laura Cintos. The slimy Brown should apologize and should lose the election. We don't need his type of cronyism politics in the Governor's office.

Agreed, slivermore and angelica! Not only did he not say it; even if he did, Meg Whitman is the quintessential corporate whore. Here's to hoping she has to go find another corporate job!

Ridiculous. Words in and of themselves are not offensive; context is everything. And in the context of Whitman selling out her values for personal gain, "whore" is used not sexually, but in the vein of the "corporate whore," a term that describes behaviors equally applicable to both sexes. If I am offended, it is by the implication that the term "whore" automatically applies to feminine sexuality, an assertion made by Whitman and the knee-jerk feminist reactionaries. Think about this rationally and not emotionally, and stick with the real issues, please

LMAO are you kidding me; insulting a person is offensive to their dignity and to common human courtesy and you want people to ignore it?? I find the comment derogatory regardless of the reason; "rationally" he could have chosen 10 different ways to express his point but chose the most degrading one to women.

I dont see the point of apologizing. Meg Whitman is a horrible human being. Anyone who has been trampled by her in business will tell you she is a complete ego maniac who cant even listen to anyone else for more than 10 seconds without bossing them around.

YES!.....Yes.....absolutly Yes he should. I disagree with Silvermore, words do matter. In this case it open a window into the culture of the inercircle of the Brown campaign. When the Boss accepts the use of filthy language among his leadership, he is condoning and accepting all the conotations they imply. He should set the standard of etiquette and tone for all the members of his campaign. And it all starts at the top.

Unfortunatly this has happened before. Last night on KCAL news I heard a Democratic stratigist say that this is Brown's style...."He shots from the hip".

I ask.....Do we want a Governer who shots from the hip? So far, I see is him missing the target.

According to Princeton University's dictionary, the word "whore" also has a meaning that has nothing to do with sex:

"compromise oneself for money or other gains"

...making Brown's use of it completely legitimate.

Should he apologize? Well, yes. But it's irrelevant.
Brown was drawn in to make these remarks, and it shows him poorly - but he is what he is, and the tape shows him up to be just that -
He made the remarks, he was caught, and an apology only digs him deeper. He's better to hope that the mess blows over.
Remember, older folks in California remember this guy for what he is - high taxes, big spending, and diversion of funds from road funds to welfare. Electing him at the top of this awful economic cycle will be a disaster (party affiliation disregarded - I'm an independent).

What Jerry should apologize for is that he is too stupid to operate a phone. How hard is it to hang up? Both candidates stink.

Why make this more dramatic? Staffers say lots of things during stressful times... since Brown didn't say it, he shouldn't have to make any statements or apologize.

There is no reason to apologize. That is who he is and how he handles things. Why should he apologize?

No, he doesn't need to say more about the remark, he has addressed the issue sufficiently. Anything more would be distracting from the issues.

Jerry Brown shouldn't apologize because he's a liberal. Now if a conservative made such a statement it would run on page one for the next three weeks.

Jerry Brown is no more responsible for his campaign worker referring to Meg Whitman as a "whore" than I would be responsible for a student in my classroom calling another a whore. I would correct the student, I would make it clear to the class that what the student said was wrong. Perhaps Mehta should butt out of what was intended to be a private conversation? Apparently, our every private conversation must be "appropriate" to everyone, at all times, and our right to privacy sacrificed to the media's lust for controversy.

A. Jerry Brown did not make the comment.

B. The remark was made in a political context during a discussion about campaign strategy. Whoever the staffer was who said it, was discussing the POLITICAL tack of portraying the opponent as beholden to special interests, aka someone who whores themselves out to the highest political donor.

Come on. What's with the faux outrage? I'm investing in fainting couch futures.

no he should not , i am sure behind her closed doors she calls him names , i can see by her walk she can cuse with the best of them , besides she on roids and smoke white owls,,

It was an aide that used that politically-charged word. In this context the word had nothing at all to do with sexuality. Just means "to compromise one's principles for personal gain". Private conversation seized by one of Meg's spies. Grow up everyone. And stop being led by the nose from the Billionairess Dual Citizen.

During the Clinton-Brown slug out in 1992 Jerry made the comment that when he looked a the Clinton's he couldn't tell who was the whore and who was the pimp. It's still a reasonable question that has never been answered. Some things never change in politics. It's the nature of the beast. This is one of them. Let's get over it and stick with the issues please. I double dare ya'll.

Considering the spinning lies from the GOP I'd say Brown has said enough. Whitman and Fiorina are just bolstering their flagging fortunes by claiming the remark came from Brown himself and others not satisfied with the apology probal should read the NY Times article where they mention its unclear Brown even heard the remark. I listened to it and Its not Brown's voice and he did not respond directly. I would not be averse to him to him apologizing for his staffer's gaffe In next week's debate... if he calls her by the onsexist term hypocrite to her face.

The comments by the supporters of Jerry Brown are offensive to Meg Whitman's corporate pimps.

I am independent, but I have learned all this years that Democrats can call Anyone, Anywhere whatever they want, This is an advantage to be a Democrat.?????????

Why on earth should Jerry apologize for his aide telling the truth about Meg?

What he should say is, "Why should I apologize for Meg Whitman being bought and paid for by the Police union?"

I guess we now know what Meg's going rate is.

 
« | 1 2 3 4 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.

Categories




Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: