Steve Poizner is scary!

Steve Poizner

I knew that Republicans have gotten pretty loony these days, but gubernatorial hopeful Steve Poizner was downright scary in his debate with Meg Whitman yesterday, threatening to create racial unrest and bankrupt the state in the name of being more conservative-than-thou.

He wants to deny all public services to undocumented immigrants and chided Whitman for not currently supporting Prop. 187, the 1994 measure that was struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. And after correctly saying California was “on the brink of economic collapse,” he went on promote that collapse by calling for a 10 percent reduction in sales, corporate, and income taxes, which really would bankrupt a state government that is already wrestling with a multi-billion-dollar budget deficit.

Now, I know that he’s pandering to the right-wing lunatic fringe of California, where Republicans are less than a third of voters and shrinking, and they’re all riled up these days from drinking too much Fox-brewed tea. But damn, this guy has really lost his mind.


The appeals process was still under way for prop 187, with the election of Gray Davis it went to mediation and then was dropped completely. Probably saving the state in legal fee's, to bad SF progressives never learned that lesson when it comes to their shitty legislation.

Interestingly enough the anti 187 position was that it took federal immigration law enforcement powers from the fed and gave it to the state.

Strangely enough the opposite of what the progressives like David Campos are insisting these days.

It also passed by twenty points by the people, although the fringe left claims to speak for the people.

These various kinds of intellectual back flips are always interesting to me.

Posted by glen matlock on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 1:32 pm

Whitman is way ahead of Poizner and several points ahead of Brown. You should worry more about her policies than either of the two old men.

Posted by Tom Foolery on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 5:20 am

What I find scary is his attempt to use his nine-months of working in “inner city” Mt. Pleasant High School as the basis of his “expertise” as an educational reformer. In a recent debate with Meg Whitman, he made an important point about widening educational options to include the expansion of vocational school, but did it by relying on offensive stereotypes of "East San Jose" and typecasting students at Mt. Pleasant High School as gang members incapable of gaining entrance to UC Berkeley, who need voc school to have any sort of future. This is all conveniently timed to coincide with the release of his book—although he says that all proceeds to be donated to the school (not that he doesn’t benefit from the publicity and “book talks” he’s arranged, of course).

As an educator for the past 14 years, a graduate of Mt. Pleasant High School, and a holder of three postsecondary degrees, I am appalled. I suppose his brief moonlighting in “the hood” was not sufficient time for him to learn sensitivity regarding how socioeconomic stigmas impact students and the local community. Had he participated as an authentic member of the community, he may have had the forethought to realize that enhancing his ethos as a candidate who professes to care about the state of public education, by means of labeling students and a school as gang-infested and lacking educational futures, only reflects the shallowness with which he approached that experience.

Teachers who are truly invested in bridging the achievement gap and addressing social inequities in under-privileged communities, even when not from those areas themselves, understand the negative impact that labeling has on those communities. Invested teachers are more interested in providing students with the tools to change their circumstances and improve their communities, rather than validating the fears and stereotypes of outsiders. There exist other arguments that Poizner could have used to boost his educational platform, that do not involve labeling entire populations of students as hopeless gang members, only suited for vocational school. I agree with Poizner that those options should be expanded by the state–yet this argument could be easily supported with statistics and testimonials, rather than an appeal to pathos that shamefully relies on socioeconomic stereotypes and institutional racism.

I am sure that Poizner’s book consists of careful documentation of his of year working amongst dangerous gang-member types (dare I say, “the savages”?), and it make for gripping melodrama, as readers discover what poor brown kids with no futures taught him about life, and how they inspired his ideas for reforming a system with which he had limited experience. Perhaps a tome on his educational philosophy will make for an interesting sequel. It was certainly nice of him, a professional untrained in educational pedagogy and urban education, to spend a whole year experimenting with what was surely a successful, business-like approach to education. An uncredentialed teacher spending a year in the classroom, who comes out of it stereotyping an entire community so he can garner publicity and gain election to public office? We should all be afraid.

Posted by Fangster on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 1:40 pm

Fangster and his/her studied leftist new-speak are always interesting when they are complaining about the right.

Fangster complains that Poizner labels the community, then Fangster does same, but in the proper newspeak of the education professional so its OK.

So it's bad to be a Poizner but OK to be a Fangster.

The "educational professionals" chase one buzz word filled intellectual fad after another, and wonder why the schools spiral down.

Poizner likely has as much understanding of the "social inequities in under-privileged communities" as you do, very little.

I don't think Hofstadter ever envisioned the lengths the critical theory intellectual faddists would have reached when he wrote his book Anti-intellectualism in American life.

Posted by glen matlock on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 4:23 pm

Steve's threatening is a reflection of a desperate and weak minded man.
With this comment, he has added to the republican demise.
They are losing the battle, and eventually the war in this showdown with democrats.
Just imagine creating racial unrest and bankrupt the state for the sake of his
personal agenda.
It will be a Steve Poisonous recipe for his personal gain.
This kind of resoning and behavioral stance is ...outrageously excremental.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

Mr. Poisner will address the most important issue for Californians and for our entire nation, which is our border security: to fix the horrible illegal immigration situation which continues to become worse: The 'increasing' numbers of illegals every single year bringing increased violence especially in border states where they are most populated, Mexican drug cartels now in every single state destroying our children with drugs and gruesome violence, the taking over of even more job fields and American jobs, continuing of increased product costs including house rentals, increasing government free services for taxpayers to pay, increasing law enforcement costs filling jails and prisons, increasing educational costs and problems. These are a few of the problems and if illegal immigrants were made to go back to their own homeland by enforcing our laws such as no hiring of illegals, the effect on each American would be a very dramatic lowering of product costs, lower cost of housing prices, and all the above helped to the extreme. Rule: fewer people lowers costs in every area and more people coming to areas rises costs in all areas. If all these increasing illegal alien problems go on then more and more Americans will leave and left will be nothing but a place just like Mexico has always been with massive corruption/crookedness all the way to the top, unGodly violence, drugs galore including way more crystal meth who's users inflict severe child abuse every day due to the drug and thus destroys society like we have never known, and it will be a nation with massive poverty. The writer of article is 100% wrong and so are several posts here; you have to look at exactly what has taken place in CA and the nation over these decades, look at all the extreme detrimental effects of illegal immigration on Americans over the years and look at the present dire situation. Look at reality instead of wishfull and hopefull thinking. The government, greedy employers and pro-illegal lawyers and groups who make money off of illegals versus the American people who are suffering much due to illegal immigration!

Posted by Guest truth on Apr. 08, 2010 @ 10:14 am

Your column is right on!! Here in LA we are besieged with illegals, and their many children. We pay for everything for these people. The city is getting filled up to the brim with people. We do not need to be punished any further.
I intend to vote for Steve Poisner. Meg Whiitman is going to continue to pay, pay and pay for all the illegals and of course, we will be the ones doing the actual supporting with our money, and the the many taxes we are forced to pay
for them.

Posted by Guest Jenna on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 12:34 pm

Why do so many overzealous right-wingers lack the most basic spelling skills? Haven't you seen his name on all the signs in your front yard? There is no "s" in PoiZner.

And though you don't realize it, unless you are Native American, you are also one of "these people." America was built on immigration.

Posted by Guest Pablito on May. 12, 2010 @ 3:45 pm

Looks like once again we really have no choice at all.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 11:07 pm

I love how intellectual gets thrown about as if it's a curse word. Having a breadth of knowledge and, apparently, experience is such a crime

The teacher in question has significantly more knowledge of the "social inequities" than Poisner because Poisner is a self-identified member of the financial elite who wrote in his book that he had no experience with the lower classes until he started teaching at the school he mis-classified as inner-city. If he calls that inner city, I'd love to see how he'd to in South Central LA.

Do you think his perspective was a little skewed by his lofty perspective? Do you think his agenda may have a good deal to do with helping people in his bracket and condescending to the rest of us? A little scared of immigrants, aren't we all?

Think about it this way, our kids are more in danger of getting a progressively crappier education, stunting their opportunities in life to help fund the upper-echelon's tax cuts than getting taken out by a drug cartel. Try some active parenting to keep them off drugs.

Oh, and not all immigrants, illegal or legal, are pistol-packing drug mules.

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2010 @ 7:00 am

Related articles

  • California, from scratch

    A new band from Bay Area punk veterans — with members of Green Day and Jawbreaker — wants to earn your fandom on its own terms

  • "Uncle Leland" suspended from California Senate, with pay for now

  • Because they're assholes

  • Also from this author