Steve Lopez: The real outrage behind the Whitman 'whore' remark
All right, sure. I think we can all agree that it's inappropriate for either Jerry Brown or one of his staffers to refer to Meg Whitman, his rival, as a whore.
What are all the impressionable young students in civics classes supposed to think? Wait, do we still fund civics classes in California?
If you saw the story about a recorded phone conversation Brown had with the Los Angeles Police Protective League, whose endorsement he was shopping for, it's not clear whether it was Brown or one of his snarky minions who used the "prostitute" reference.
But here's the deal: The endorsement went to Whitman, who would have you believe that public-employee unions are public enemy No. 1 and that they've got Brown in their pocket, making him incapable of reining in spending or balancing a budget.
And yet Meg had agreed to exempt public-safety employees from a pension reform plan in which she would move state workers into 401(k)s. Yeah, she's tough as nails, but she'll sell her soul for an endorsement.
If "whore" is the wrong word for that, is "hypocrite" the right one? You be the judge.
Talk to me, California.
-- Steve Lopez
Photos: Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown. Credit: Los Angeles Times








If the shoe fits.....
Posted by: kelly | October 08, 2010 at 03:37 PM
No, Steve, "whore" is the right word. This whole thing points out that she'll spread 'em for an endorsement, and some cash, specifically $450,000 that the Police Protective League is now going to spend on her behalf. "Hypocrite" also applies here given her accusations against Brown about being in the pocket of Unions. We haven't seen one example of Brown being in the pocket of unions, but here is a crystal clear example of Whitman making an exception for a union who is financially backing her. In a few weeks, there will be another word to describe her, "loser."
Posted by: Phil McCracken | October 08, 2010 at 03:39 PM
Is there a difference between being a politician and being a whore?
Please explain. Compare and contrast.
Posted by: J. Priest | October 08, 2010 at 03:39 PM
Meg Whitman would want us to concentrate on the 'whore' comment, but Steve, you've nailed the actual 'outrage' here...hypocrisy is right!
Posted by: Jason | October 08, 2010 at 03:39 PM
The real issue is whether wheezin' geezer Jerry Brown, at his very advanced age, would know what to do with a "whore", real or otherwise.
Posted by: Verbalocity | October 08, 2010 at 03:40 PM
Obviously, Mr. Lopez is a Jerry fan.
Posted by: Judy | October 08, 2010 at 03:41 PM
Maybe she is a hypocrite. But what politician isn't? Jerry Brown isn't going to raise taxes without a public vote...puh-lease.
But words do matter. And the w word isn't hypocrite. I am sure it is easy as a man to not have sensitivity to that word, but as a woman, I am completely offended. And to dismiss as just a word, not having any different value is not only disingenuous, but disappointing.
As someone who writes for a living, I would expect you of all people to understand that the words you choose do matter. And how you describe politicians and laws do impact how people think about those people and issues.
If she had been called a hypocrite on that phone call, it wouldn't have been a story, but that isn't the word they chose, and that is why words matter. Nothing like a bunch of men sitting around disrespecting women and then excusing their behavior with the age old "boys will be blys" excuse. Sorry, its time to grow up. And I for one am not buying it.
Posted by: MissJaneCalifornia | October 08, 2010 at 03:42 PM
That should just about put the final nail in the coffin of the Whitman campaign.
Posted by: Gary C | October 08, 2010 at 03:43 PM
Really, she's dumped a $140M on an election, if actions speak louder than words, she thinks CA voters are whores.
Posted by: KC | October 08, 2010 at 03:44 PM
He's just calling a spade a spade. I noticed no one a Meg's camp is disputing the allegation.
Posted by: Doomonyou | October 08, 2010 at 03:45 PM
That said, I guess if Whitman got the LAPPL's endorsement, we know who the whore is in this conversation.
Posted by: KC | October 08, 2010 at 03:46 PM
Nice spin, just like the rest of the Times.
Posted by: Johnny | October 08, 2010 at 03:46 PM
BFD John & Ken call ALL politicans whores, plus they add the word theives too.
Posted by: Marlena | October 08, 2010 at 03:47 PM
Your're missing the point: Jerry Brown will say or do anything to remain on the state dole; including parading an illegal immigrant on camera despite risking her arrest; and, using a vile concept to smear his opponent. It's called dirty, filthy politics. All of this to mask the fact that Brown was a failed governor who supported taxes that have run countless businesses and jobs out of our state. If Meg chooses to support our police officers who place their lives on the line (my uncle was shot and killed on duty), so be it. That doesn't discount the fact that most state pensions have otherwise bankrupted CA. And, that Jerry (Moonbeam) Brown is this year's special interest candidate. Steve, you're showing your bias - we should be appalled at racial and sexual slurs that tell volumes about the character of who says them. I would say Brown is more the hypocrite by courting NOW's endorsement while daring to promote a woman opponent as a #!%.
Posted by: Alex Kendall | October 08, 2010 at 03:47 PM
Meg is a strategist, plain and simple. I think you're simply bitter she is already exhibiting superior political savy than the orbiting Moonbeam who is still looking for a universe to call his very own.
Jerry didn't get his way, Steve Lopez obviously didn't get his way - excuse me while I scream at them both for the constant whining and 'splaining since a head slap is out of the question....but badly needed for the both of them in one quick movement.
Posted by: So Snarky Steve | October 08, 2010 at 03:47 PM
It is even more hypocritical when you consider that Whitman actually sold her soul to protect the pensions of Milk Inspectors and Billboard Inspectors. Check the Sacramento Bee's pension countdown from 2004. Meg Whitman is actually supporting "public safety/law enforcement" pensions, which Gray Davis gave out like party favors to the union CSLEA, which does not represent cops...
Somebody really needs to nail Whitman when she parses about "public safety/law enforcement" and who she really means, because she does not mean cops.
Posted by: Maxwell Velli | October 08, 2010 at 03:48 PM
I think the appropriate term would be "hypocritical prostitute."
Posted by: matthew | October 08, 2010 at 03:51 PM
My Russophone wife on Whitman: "In order to be a whore, she would have to be attractive--otherwise, business would not go that well."
This is where Russian is quite handy: I now know of at least five different one- or two-syllable words for whore (most of which my wife has used, incidentally, to describe my mother). In Whitman's case, "schluha"--implying an old, washed-up streetwalker who has to beg for business--probably is most apt.
Posted by: still.ill | October 08, 2010 at 03:51 PM
Hey Steve, why don't you just come out of the closet and say you support Mr. Brown.
this paper s uc ks
Posted by: Tim | October 08, 2010 at 03:51 PM
I have to laugh at all the commotion over the negative comments about various candidate's opponents. Try reading the campaign stories of the Adams-Jefferson campaign and the campaigns which Andrew Jackson was in. In fact any of the 19the Century campaigns in the United States would make these campaigns look like kindergarten games.
Posted by: Dick Diamond | October 08, 2010 at 03:52 PM
Progressive Spin Doctor Lopez,
The fact that you felt compelled to quickly write up your take on this latest news item, belies your nonchalant attitude toward the 'whore' remark. Deep down you are worried that the electorate is so stupid that they will change their minds about Jerry and vote for Meg. Progressives, with their smarter than everyone else arrogance, don't really think highly of most voters, especially those on the Right.
I think ordinary people have a lot more common sense than the Liberal Elite. Meg knows the art of compromise. And that makes her a good politician. Brown and his sycophants were upset that Meg the amateur politician, beat the veteran Brown at his own game. The Left's instinct is always to taint their opponents with ad hominem remarks. You call her a hypocrite. That's so typical of your side. My spin? Getting the endorsement from Law Enforcement is just plain old smart.
Posted by: Carlos 001 | October 08, 2010 at 03:53 PM
I still want to know why after 28 years of not bothering to vote in California why she is now our "savior"? She didn't seem to care at all for all these years, so just why is she now trying to buy her way to the top instead of at least running for a lower office first which would at least give the appearance of trying to learn just how governement works. The word "whore" may be offensive, but it doesn't make it less true, just like Gloria Allread is a "media whore". Whitman is a hypocrite on so many levels and buying her endorsements is as vulgar as the word whore. Public Financing of campaigns is the only way we can keep big business out of politics and allow for the less wealthy to run for office. She is not qualified to be our governor; one rookie (Schwartzeneggar)was enough...
Posted by: Patty-Lou | October 08, 2010 at 03:54 PM
If I correct it is illegal to record a telephone conversation in California without the consent of the party you are recording. The Police Protective League should be aware of it
Posted by: Scott Schuele | October 08, 2010 at 03:54 PM
There is nothing inconsistent in acknowedging that public safety officers might merit different treatment than every back office clerk at DMV. I suspect that California voters had that in mind all along. "Nuanced" is the term your paper used so often in 2004.
The outrage is that your newspaper and you are focusing on frvolities of both candidates, defaulting on your obligation to the voters, and abetting a civic fraud.
As to Brown: he is endorsed by the SEIU and known to the knowledgable as the cashier for the Unions, but he is getting a free pass from your paper.
When will you point out (for the benefit of those too young to remember), that HE signed the legislation enabling state employees to unionize? Or highlight his endorssement by powerful unions such as SEIU?
Or that while he was mayor of Oakland, he fought release of salary information all the way the the California Supreme court-where he was told to produce it?
As to Whitman: what exactly does she plan to do re pensions if they are contractually inviolate?
The governorship of the largest state is being decided by irrelevancies--Whitman's employment of a perjurious housekeeper, and an unprintable remark by Brown or an aide about Whitman.
Posted by: Smith | October 08, 2010 at 03:56 PM
Well dog my cats. The choice of language was crude. Pretty much accurate. Sounds like Meg's a dealmaker who has no qualms dropping her principles faster people in some professions drop their panties.
Posted by: Joe Grofinkle | October 08, 2010 at 03:57 PM