It seems like everyone was talking about Whitman’s announcement this week that she had finally made a decision to vote “No” on Proposition 23, also known as the “Dirty Energy Proposition.” Prop 23 would effectively repeal California’s first-in-the-nation climate change solutions law, also known as AB 32. But Whitman’s announcement didn’t quite get the response she had hoped for. Here are a few responses to Whitman’s announcement that she would oppose Prop 23 but still call for a year-long moratorium on California’s climate and clean energy law:
“[T]he most telling revelation about [Whitman’s] ability to run California has been her waffling over AB 32, the state global warming law that technology leaders believe can propel California into the forefront of the world’s green economy.” (San Jose Mercury News editorial)
“[Whitman] dodged the issue for months before announcing Thursday that she opposes the November suspension measure, Proposition 23.” (Los Angeles Times)
“In an attempt to ensure that California has neither an old-energy nor new-energy economy, Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has announced her opposition to Proposition 23, the oil-fueled campaign to suspend California’s landmark climate law AB 32. Whitman also reiterated her call for a one-year moratorium of AB 32, attacking it as a ‘job-killer.’” (Wonk Room)
“Meg Whitman, the former eBay CEO running as the Republican candidate for governor in California, says she doesn’t want to roll back the state’s landmark greenhouse gas emissions law. She just wants to cut off its oxygen supply.” (GreenTech Enterprise)
“In the same press release where she claims to oppose repealing AB32, she calls for a suspension of AB32. The bottom-line is no one knows what Meg Whitman’s position really is.” (Brown spokesperson Clifford Sterling in the Associated Press)
“California League of Conservation Voters Chief Executive Warner Chabot likened Whitman’s stance to having two guns trained on AB 32, one being Prop. 23 and the other a gubernatorial moratorium. ‘She put one of the guns down but kept the other one pointed at it,’ he said. ‘She should put that other gun down.’” (San Jose Mercury News)
“Nancy Unger, who teaches environmental history at Santa Clara University, said Whitman’s criticism of AB32 and her opposition to Prop. 23 reflects a ‘notion of trying to have it all ways.’” (San Francisco Chronicle)
“Talk about trying to have it both ways! Whitman’s campaign has obviously concluded that Proposition 23 is a loser… We’ll find out whether California voters will buy that classic demonstration of political flimflam in a couple of months.” (Salon)
“Meg Whitman talks a big game about the need for green innovation, jobs and technology, yet she’s willing to quash the very program that has allowed for this industry’s tremendous growth. Californians need to know that even if Proposition 23 fails, Meg Whitman plans to take the baton from the oil companies and roll back our clean air and energy standards.” (Jerry Brown, campaign Web site)
“So we are left to wonder: What does Meg Whitman really stand for? Why did it take her a full year to say whether she’d vote to repeal the law, having had strong enough thoughts that far back to write an op-ed about how bad it was? And why did she reach this particular conclusion now if she would ‘probably’ veto the law if she could? We have a suspicion: polls.” (San Jose Mercury News editorial)
“[Whitman]is trying to split the baby.” (Bruce Cain, political scientist at UC Berkeley, in Los Angeles Times)
“Stop and start is exactly what people hate about government. I think we have to have a clear mandate, a clear signal that California is open for business in renewable energy.” (Jerry Brown, in Los Angeles Times)
Clearly, Jerry Brown is the only candidate in this race who has been clear all along on where he stands on California’s clean energy future. It’s one of the many reasons Brown earned our endorsement for governor.
