Campaign Crawlers
The Next Reagan? Maybe
She is Meg Whitman and she is running for Governor of California.
She’s tall, blonde and looks you straight in the eye on meeting. You tell her about a local shipping port issue. She asks for more details and clearly understands the economic significance of the issue in the greater scheme of things.
A few minutes later she’s at the podium telling her personal story in an engaging way, then shifting to the very large problems facing the state. In clear, crisp fashion she tells her audience what she wants to do about them.
She is Meg Whitman and she is running for Governor of California. Like Ronald Reagan more than four decades earlier, she is traveling the state introducing herself to potential supporters in cities and towns large and small.
Her audiences know the problems: a state budget that has shot up by 80 percent over the last 10 years; painful spending cuts and added taxes this year to get the budget temporarily balanced; a school system with results near the bottom of the 50 states; an overly large bureaucracy; an ineffectual legislature — for starters.
She says, “It’s better to do three things at 100 percent than 15 things at 20 percent,” and names the three: job growth, government spending, and education.
If you read that in a campaign brochure your reaction might be ho-hum, but hearing it from this woman who knows her issues and statistics gives the statement the ingredients needed: conviction and determination.
It’s widely understood that California’s regulatory burdens and high taxes are keeping new businesses out and driving away some existing ones. When she says she will set out to streamline the regulatory process “in a very aggressive way,” you believe her.
California’s government has been growing like mushrooms after the rain. She is determined to stop and, wherever possible, reduce that growth. She intends to review all programs with an eye toward consolidation where that’s appropriate, and elimination if they have outlived their usefulness.
As for education, of the state’s $70 billion annual spending, approximately half goes to administrative and overhead costs. Her goal is to bring that down to 20 percent, with 80 percent going into the classroom, including merit pay for exceptional teachers.
There are entrenched constituencies for the status quo in all of three areas of her focus. The legislature has been controlled by the Democrats for most of the last 50 years. They still live in the reflected glow of the steady growth of the Fifties and Sixties (before many of them were born). Then, the answer to any problem was, do it; we’ll find the money (in taxes, tolls, licensing fees) and the state seemingly could always afford it. Population was always growing; so were revenues.
No more. The public is used to having a can-do spirit, but unwilling to pay for it. A steady dose of reality, coupled with optimism, is what is needed. And that is exactly what Meg Whitman communicates. Like Ronald Reagan, her demeanor is friendly and upbeat, but determined.
She understands the complicated interrelationships of institutions. She got her start in management consulting, with Bain & Company, Mitt Romney’s company. Later, she moved to eBay, then a small online auction company with 30 employees. She piloted it to $8 billion in annual sales and 15,000 employees. It is very pro-entrepreneur. “Today, 1.3 million people make most or all of their living on eBay,” she says.
As one person said after her presentation, “The politicians — mostly men — have messed things up in Sacramento for years. Maybe it’s time to let a smart, successful businesswoman have a crack at it.” Indeed it may be.
Like Ronald Reagan, she has clear convictions, the determination to carry them out against a large, usually unmovable object — state government, and the optimistic, sunny personality needed to roll with the punches. Is she the next Reagan? Maybe so.
About the Author
Peter Hannaford was closely associated for a number of years with the late President Reagan, beginning in the California Governor’s office. His latest book is Presidential Retreats.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Peter Hannaford
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/14/the-next-reagan-maybe
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Androniy | 9.14.09 @ 7:06AM
Man, $8 billion is a pretty huge!
Virginia Patriot| 9.14.09 @ 7:18AM
Mr. Hannaford
I, along with between 60,000 and 2M of American Spectators other readers would like to call your attention to a little event that occurred in Washington and around the country this past Saturday - the 9/12 Teaparty. Meg Whitman is the kind of politician we REJECT - she supports the Czar, Van Jones. IF she thinks he's fine we know she's not. She is certainly no Reagan. The closest politicians to Reagan today are the ones who balance budgets, intelligently challenge big government polititicians, and are interested in America first, politics second. Some of them have been known to use Facebook.
Melvin| 9.14.09 @ 7:22AM
"As one person said after her presentation, "The politicians -- mostly men."
Even though the above statement from Meg Whitman is true, it just gets tiresome of hearing from politicians, "well, the men screwed thing up or the women screwed things up." That type of mentality is missing the whole point. Regardless of gender it is the political philosophy of the political man or woman that will have the propensity to screw things up.
Americans as a whole right now could care less if a politician is man, woman or a horned toad lizard with a third eye. Americans just want to stop this intrusive, tyrannical, growth of government stopped at all levels, and right now no one has the capacity to make that happen.
By all accounts Meg Whitman has the political skills and the economic savvy to make the bureaucrats in the CA legislature tow the line. But Meg must be wary. The CA Legislature is chock full of political Judases that will cut Meg down at the first opportunity to protect t heir little kingdoms.
No More RINOS!| 9.14.09 @ 7:25AM
Why haven't you done your homework on this woman? She rarely ever voted, her public record is not impressive and shows no real indication of any political center, she's on record praising Van Jone. She's nothing but another RINO-in-waiting. Please CA - Republicans can do better than this over-wealthy, pseudo-Republican - if she gets in, I'm betting she'll out-do Arnold in driving CA in to the ground.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 8:38AM
nothing wrong with Whitman or Palin, except (this is AS, we don't have to be PC) she is a woman, and this is a man's world-- only Marxists think otherwise.
Thatcher? an anomaly.
You can't hurry evolution and still be conservative.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 8:45AM
what I am trying to say (in a 2nd class philosopher's manner) is: nothing wrong with women bucking the glass ceiling, except for the safety glass built by hundreds of thousands of years of male history.
Having women in politics is necessary; but Whitman and Palin, though they be strong and talented, represent conservative feel-good politics;
it makes us feel better even though the superficiality of it is like placing a doily on a wild bull in his pen.
Jeannine| 9.14.09 @ 8:59AM
Meg Whitman is no Reagan. Reagan respected all stages of human life. I'm not too sure that can be said for Whitman. I'm looking at Gov Bobby Jindal. At least he is humble enough to admit that he's currently not ready for national politics . He's done alot of good things for Louisiana so far.
owyheewine| 9.14.09 @ 9:12AM
We need Meg Whitman to succeed. Maybe then some of the Californians that are polluting surrounding states will move back.
Joe| 9.14.09 @ 10:37AM
Virginia Patriot, I would like to tell you from someone who was there too. It was several hundred thousand. Probably half a million there Saturday.
Dave InCalifornia| 9.14.09 @ 10:46AM
Meg Whitman is simply another Arnold...lots of good talk, but no reality in action. Tom McClintock is who we need as Governor, and has a proven Conservative record.
Skip MacLure| 9.14.09 @ 11:09AM
SOMEBODY tell me I'm dreaming. Has anyone checked out the video of Meg Whitman simpering over Van Jones? So she hasn't got the good sense to thoroughly vet someone she has just met and gives him a ringing endorsement.......And we are going to be asked to put her in the wheelhouse of the Titanic. Just what this State needs....another clueless RINO.
Dai Alanye | 9.14.09 @ 11:17AM
Surely you jest, Hannaford!
Not only did this woman support Van Jones, not only was she an associate of Romney, she was also one of John McCain's supporters and advisors. She is a RINO worse than the typical RINO, for she has no conservative philosophical background to buttress policies.
In other words, at this point she is the typical money-grubber, convinced that because she could run a business with just one principle—make money by whatever means—she can take over a government with every public responsibility except the power to declare war.
No thank you, sir. Put not your trust in businessmen—nor in businesswomen either.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 11:29AM
politics is no longer adolescent, but, rather, childish. dumbed down to the level of, say, an illiterate illegal immigrant in a crummy California publik skool.
our 'system' was designed by geniuses to be operated by fools.
tj| 9.14.09 @ 12:29PM
We need to picket the
offices of the commie media and demand they tell the truth.... Acorn did it to the banks so lets use Alinsky rules against them and bring them down... they are already tanking... so maybe a "Nudge" in right direction!!!
rt| 9.14.09 @ 12:34PM
When Glenn Beck interviewed her a while back, he asked her if she was for drilling off the coast of CA. She said no! She is another enviro wack job like our girly man in office right now! Mr. Hannaford you better do some homework before endorsing another RINO!
Bloom| 9.14.09 @ 1:26PM
Thank you for outing your website. I used to give you the benefit of doubt and trust the opinions I find here, but no longer. Meg Whitman: the next Reagan? Yeah, Ron Jr. All I can say is, "Good luck getting your credibility back."
Pingback| 9.14.09 @ 1:53PM
Is Meg Whitman the state’s next Reagan? — The Dana Report links to this page.
ErnestPayne| 9.14.09 @ 2:07PM
Meg managed to mismanage the goldmine Ebay into its current state. That should explain why she is not the person to run California.
Majito Querido| 9.14.09 @ 2:20PM
So how are those studs, er men, in power now? like that strong decisive darker leader in the oval office now? and the effete senate leader, isn't he a beautiful example of manliness? I mean can't get any closer to nfl-leather-on-leather-marlboro-man-macho type dude, can you? And how about that other dem during the 90's...think was he or her running stuff...and let us not forget about that saint ronnie...his mind was pretty much useless during his last term and it was the little woman by his side the one that ran stuff...this line that only dudes rule totally ignores the fact that as with everything leadership, and good one at that, is not necessarily the privilege of testorene...rather have a Golda Meir type running the US military than that sorry excuse now or back in the 90's...any day of the week...
Maggie| 9.14.09 @ 2:30PM
Meg Whitman is a big supporter of Van Jones -- end of political career, as far as I'm concerned. Check it out on YouTube.
stmichrick| 9.14.09 @ 2:36PM
Guess we told you, Peter.
John Stoos | 9.14.09 @ 2:52PM
I Meg planning on writing a book about the importance of being ProLife the way Reagan did?
John
kingsmill| 9.14.09 @ 2:56PM
What bloody rubbish. Meg Whitman? Did you watch her during the 2008 campaign? Utterly ineffectual. This tripe reads like an ode to Stalin or Mao that would come out of a Red organ. Now I get it, she is a dream, to the Republican Beltway operatives, who can bleed her cash dry on an ill fated campaign. Find another candidate, the business crowd produces milquetoast Mitt and Witless Whitman. They are not good candidates.
Tim| 9.14.09 @ 2:57PM
"Waiting for Go(p)dot"
Ken| 9.14.09 @ 3:18PM
If like Reagan you mean this woman supports legalized abortion in California, then yes. But Reagan changed for the better since the 1960s -- this lady seems to indeed be stuck in a RINO mindset in 2009.
Big Jim| 9.14.09 @ 3:59PM
Meg is not the answer by a long shot. Tom McClintock is a true conservative and would stand up for the principles conservatives hold dear. Meg is a RINO waiting to happen.
Cicero| 9.14.09 @ 4:17PM
Whitman's only known political act has been to lavish praise on communist anti-white racist-9/11 truther-turned greenie Van Jones.
So call me unconvinced.
Pingback| 9.14.09 @ 4:25PM
The American Spectator : The Next Reagan? Maybe | americantoday links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 4:32PM
"and let us not forget about that saint ronnie...his mind was pretty much useless during his last term and it was the little woman by his side the one that ran stuff...this line that only dudes rule totally ignores the fact that as with everything leadership..."
No, Ronnie was lucid until long after he left office.
You confuse influence w/ power. Nancy (like all women) had influence, but little power.
Adam Smith| 9.14.09 @ 4:41PM
Great, another affirmative action canidate from the Republicans. How's that thing with Steele working out for you?
"As one person said after her presentation, "The politicians -- mostly men -- have messed things up in Sacramento for years. Maybe it's time to let a smart, successful businesswoman have a crack at it." Indeed it may be. "
More drivel & puff.
Let's hear what this person is about instead of the shamless marketing pitch that resorts to pc bashing & an entitlement mentality.
How does she feel about Van Jones?
"Mistunderstood & unappreciated" like other party tools from the party of Lincoln?
Great that she's tall & blonde though. That is sure to sway my vote.
Lame sauce Peter.
JS| 9.14.09 @ 4:43PM
My first warning flag was when the article stated that Meg lists education as one of her top priorities. Sheeesh? Really? The reason Republicans are losing left and right are because of government RUN and CONTROLED schools and their lackies in the Government Teachers Unions. Until a Republican stands against the entrenched government run education system they will never get traction with me or any conservative.
Father Zossima| 9.14.09 @ 6:00PM
The next Reagan will NOT come from the Republican party, now little more than a rapidly rotting cadaver and not even a conservative one at that. The next Reagan will come from a new conservative party. Which one emerges right now, who can say? But to hasten the rise of the next Reagan, best for real conservatives to work at having the democrat-lite GOP put down like the diseased old dog it's become and make room for the rise of the next truly conservative party.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 6:07PM
yes.
but we've got to tell libertopians that they aren't conservatives.
Ask Codevilla what exactly is it he wants to conserve.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 6:11PM
"and let us not forget about that saint ronnie...his mind was pretty much useless during his last term and it was the little woman by his side the one that ran stuff...this line that only dudes rule totally ignores the fact that as with everything leadership..."
which minority-dominated publik skool did the above victim graduate from? Nancy "ran stuff"?
like what, rack?
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 6:13PM
'scuse, babe,
what did Nancy ran?
crack? weed?
james| 9.14.09 @ 6:20PM
The Next Reagan? Are you serious? This non-entity isn't even the next McCain.
Have you not seen her praising Van Jones?
The next Reagan? Good grief. This woman is a republican, not a conservative, and she's the kind of republican Lowell Weicker was.
Time for you folks to move back to Indiana and get your heads straight.
Adam Smith| 9.14.09 @ 6:44PM
Even the HuffPo thinks this Meg Whitman is a shallow tool & figurehead:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....77637.html
Yeah, she's a big fan of Van Johnson.
Looks like I'll be will be voting for whoever is running against here that has some conservative principles. She is a female McLame without the war hero credential.
No thanks Mr. Hannaford. I don't need any more snake oil.
PCP Smoker| 9.14.09 @ 6:45PM
John O'Sullivan's rule is applicable here- if you don't start out conservative, you will end up a liberal.
In the end this lady will govern like Christine Todd Whitman, and once she fails, she will blame all her troubles on the "misogynous right wing of the GOP" who prevented her from true bipartisan reform.
This movie is soo old. I wonder why didn't you write about the 9/12 tea party?
janet| 9.14.09 @ 6:57PM
Don't insult Ronald Reagan.
Jimmy Carter| 9.14.09 @ 7:02PM
Here is some nice video of Van, Meg & I on a Global Warming junket cruise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QFfciwRqaU
Enjoy. I love Meg & she's going to do for California what Barrack is doing for America.
Pingback| 9.14.09 @ 10:21PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : The Next Reagan? Maybe [spectator.or links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
waynev| 9.15.09 @ 12:43AM
This nit wit stated "Van Jones is simply the greatest." Sucking for the black; I suppose.
123123| 9.15.09 @ 6:37AM
wedding dress factory
wedding dress shops
Pingback| 9.15.09 @ 3:45PM
CRAFT-TASTROPHIC: Great Freebies at the SAS contest… | Freebies Uncovered links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.20.09 @ 5:03PM
News And Views 9-20-09 | FreedoMedium links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Paul| 2.9.10 @ 2:57AM
I have to admit - as a democrat - Meg Whitman is going to be a formidable opponent. She may well defeat easily Jerry Brown if she continues with her moderate and pragmatic approach. Only moderate republicans can win not the Limbaugh and Beck types - these are stupid dogmatic idiots like the one in Upstate New York that was defeated by the Democrat for the 1st time in 150 years...
Whitman has great accomplishments and would be so much better than Palin - Palin is simply an idiot a joke. Whitman has the whole package for her - smart, brilliant, moderate, pragmatic, successful.
Pingback| 2.11.10 @ 5:32AM
RSS Feeds for Teachers Can Stop Classroom Management Problems and Streamline Your Tim links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Susan Mathew| 2.22.10 @ 6:34AM
Agree 100 % to paul. I am neutral with politics ,because I know how politicians are. But when a woman self made billionaire wants to try to do the hard job , we have to give standing ovation. At the age and place in life when 99.99 % of women in her position ad situation would live a life of utmost luxury my jaw drops to hear that she wants another hard job.We should be thankful to her husband and kids for letting her do it. Love for your country is one thing, but dont forget human beings are progrmmed for self interest. BTW I am not dem or rep just honesty and sincerity ,be it rich or poor.
poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 8:42PM
thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica