Jerry Brown has been far from silent on what matters when you compare him to his likely competitors, Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner.

Rather, Jerry Brown has been talking about the one proven factor in future performance - past success and experience. Jerry Brown over and over has been highlighting his successful experience previously as governor, where he created more than 1.6 million jobs in California, and his success in his current position as Attorney General.

 

Meg Whitman and Steven Poizner both have been very successful too - in business. While Steve has had limited government experience spending the last few years as an unremarkable insurance commissioner, Meg Whitman didn't even bother to vote until a few years ago. And as history shows us, we currently have a governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is disastrous in government but was extremely successful at something else - acting and business (brand management). The bottom line is, none of the other candidates for governor have any relevant political experience. And when push comes to shove, experience speaks far louder than words.

You can take this and apply it to any issue: for example - education. This is an issue that Jerry Brown is often criticized for silence on (by Neon Tommy even), but yet he is far from quiet. Jerry Brown has talked at length about his creation of the successful Oakland Military Institute and Oakland School for the Arts charter schools as Mayor of Oakland, which have been instrumental in changing the lives of thousands of kids. 

Additionally, he has very clearly promised to roll back UC tuition increases. And Jerry Brown has a real record of taking charge to cut wasteful spending to accomplish this without diminishing the services offered to students, including paying attention to the little details such as stopping the practice of the UC Regents taking limos to meetings - paid for by the taxpayer, while he was governor. These words and actions illustrate loud and clear Jerry Brown's capabilities as governor. 

In contrast, both Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner have pretty education talking points on their websites, written up by expensive consultants. They even have a large, expensive, staff to respond to e-mails by every small online paper that sends a request with these cookie-cutter, meatless, talking points. "Policies" (talking points) that it is doubtful the candidate had any significant role in creating. 

However, they have no personal experience to draw from on the majority of the issues, and neat campaign talking points are rarely indicative of what actually gets done once in office. This is especially true when working with California's polarized legislature, which regardless of the screaming and kicking of the governor about their policies, still has the final say and will continue to paralyze California unless they, as Jerry Brown's campaign tagline says, get "working again." What is indicative of performance in getting policies pushed through is past performance, which on this and most issues involving government, is a big fat zero for both of the Republican primary candidates.

Jerry Brown could also have pretty, and somewhat useless, talking points on all of these issues and even send out 35-page color policy booklets (environmental responsibility anyone?) to every person that inputs their address on his website too, if he wanted to burn through the same amount of money as his opponents. (Meg Whitman has poured $68 million of her own money into her primary campaign and Steve Poizner has put $24 million into his - just think how many mouths that could feed). 

In contrast, Jerry Brown has spent a bit under $200,000 and is still consistently beating both candidates in head-to-head match-up polls. This campaign spending says a lot about Jerry Brown's ability to be frugal, not just in the campaign, but as governor, and makes you wonder if these business candidates have really done any sort of cost benefit analysis with the amount of their own money they're throwing away for a job that pays $206,500. And a frugal, economically savvy and experienced governor is exactly what California needs.

Simply because a candidate doesn't attempt to make up for a lack of experience by wasting money (through hiring expensive consultants to come up with talking point "policies" based on polling data rather than beliefs), nor see value in spending millions of dollars on TV advertisements (many months before the general election so that his face gets permanently and painfully ingrained in your eyes after watching just one episode of your favorite sitcom) does not make him silent. 

Rather, before jumping to conclusions that a candidate hasn't said anything, it would be prudent to read between the lines and examine the experience, actions and speeches of the candidates and use those to speak for them. Not only do these speak louder than scripted, polled and meatless talking points masqueraded as policies, but they are a much better indicator of future performance.