Meg Whitman is telling the truth when it comes to Jerry Brown and taxes. According to factcheck.org, "state taxes...increased during four of Brown’s eight years, and during six of those years they were higher than before he took office. But they were lower during his final two years."
For me, the bottom line is fixing structural long-term deficits, and Meg Whitman has shown more willingness to do that than Jerry Brown. One measuring stick is government employee pensions--does a politician wants to reform government pensions, or does s/he want to maintain the current pension system?
By the way, some of the anti-Meg literature seems counter-productive. I received a 9/23/10 letter from a Consumer Attorneys Group with the following line: "Meg Whitman has a plan--to change California to be a world without [civil] lawyers." Does the pro-Brown camp really want to align themselves with lawyers? When large organizations of civil lawyers support a candidate, it usually means the candidate supports greater regulation of businesses, including small businesses.
Bonus I: Allow me to explain how our federal government works. To begin with, by the federal government I mean Democrats and Republicans working together. And the only thing dumber than a Democrat and a Republican is when those pr*cks work together. You see, in our two-party system, the Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas. It usually goes something like this. A Republican will stand up in Congress and say, "I've got a really bad idea." And a Democrat will immediately jump to his feet and declare, "And I'm gonna make it sh*ttier." -- Lewis Black
Bonus II: “I am not a Democrat, because I have no idea what their economic policies are; And I am not a Republican, because I know precisely what their economic policies are.” -- Barry Ritholtz
Bonus III: "If the choice is between a crackpot, small government conservative or a tax and spend, nanny-state liberal, I’ll choose the crackpot every time." -- as seen on message board