Email from a failed mayoral candidate…
From: Nathan Fletcher
Date: May 4, 2013, 12:22:31 PM
Subject: BREAKING
BREAKING: Tea Party Favorite Carl DeMaio Eyeing Run for CA-52
Recent news out of Washington D.C. is that Tea Party extremists are recruiting one of their own — failed San Diego mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio — to run against my friend Scott Peters.
There is no doubt, this race is going to be tough. The Tea Party is going to raise a ton of money to support their ideal candidate. Scott doesn’t need to match him dollar-for-dollar, but he will need the resources necessary to defend himself. We need Scott to keep solving our most pressing problems and continue to bring change to Washington.
We need to be prepared. If we are, we can make sure that extremism doesn’t get in the way of real progress for San Diego. But we need your grassroots support to help us take him on.
The letter goes on. But, you get the gist.
Comments 8
From Facebook:
Stephen Puetz: “I didn’t just vote to cut welfare, I voted to eliminate it” -Nathan Fletcher, one year ago while seeking the Republican Party endorsement.
So Nathan Fletcher becomes a Democrat today and the first item on his list is to send out a email calling Carl DeMaio (gay, social moderate) a Tea Party candidate who is bad for San Diego.
The only thing more sad than his hypocrisy and ongoing identity crisis is his unchecked resentment towards those who ever stood in his way.
Tony Manolatos: Haven’t read the email yet. Did it really mention Carl? And in that context?
Tony Manolatos: Saw it. Why muddy your message? It’s not enough to make the jump? It reads like a huge unnecessary exclamation point. It also reads an awful lot like he’s still campaigning. Bad timing. Bad message. Just bad. Got it? 😉
Patrick Howell: Nathan Fletcher has no backbone, no soul and no moral compass and without a doubt he has no soul. Self serving has a new low and it has hit rock bottom……………………….
Jonathan Buettner: Like his next presidential nominee once said; “What, at this point, difference does it make?”
Councilman Scott Sherman: That’s what happens when you have no character. Nathan is about Nathan and that’s it. If it’s not changing party to Independent the day after he begged for the GOP endorsement or taking advantage of a terrible tragedy and coming up with Megan’s law so he could get his name in the paper. Other than our Mayor…….Nathan Fletcher embodies everything that is wrong with politicians. Remember…………..I’m still not one. Just surrounded by them.
Scott Hasson: No joke… Scott hit the nail right on the head..nice to know my council-member is not a politician but a successful businessman on loan for to fix what his predecessor messed up.
Barry Jantz: Just one comment on Chelsea’s Law. Legislators like Jay La Suer, Dennis Hollingsworth, Sharon and George Runner and others worked hard for years to try to get legislation like that passed. In most cases, denied on a straight party line vote, unless it was taken to the ballot. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a horrific tragedy to get the majority of the legislature to do the right thing. This was just such an instance. If that tragedy had happened in my area as a legislator, I would have tried to make some sliver of good out of it as well. I don’t view Chelsea’s Law as a good example of the opportunism being decried. Plenty of other legitimate examples. Not that one.
Tony Manolatos is on point, as are the others in their facebook comments. I don’t think anyone is surprised, but we need to keep the focus on winning, Carl could do it, let’s focus and not let these obvious things distract us.
If we stop talking about Nathan Fletcher does he go away?
Tea Party political support can take many forms, but money ain’t one of ’em. For a political veteran such as Fletcher to make such an absurd claim is simply mind-boggling.
Then he glosses over where Scott will get the “resources necessary” for his campaign. TOP resource — the labor unions. No doubt.
And it’s THAT money spigot — the most dominant political power in California — is what makes Nathan Fletcher a Democrat. He’s sold out for the money — make no mistake about it.
Actually, my above post is slightly in error when I say that Fletcher “sold out for the money . . . .”
He didn’t “sell out” — he had nothing to sell. He didn’t change sides by compromising his principles. He’s always stayed loyal to his side — he is loyal to himself.
Here’s a thought — if for some reason the Democrat Party chooses NOT to endorse Nathan in a political race (opting for a better, more reliable candidate, for instance), is it not likely that Fletcher will leave the Democrat Party?
Richard, Nathan didn’t compromise his principles because he doesn’t have any principles.
Scott Peters can get all the money he needs from his wife. I can attest that the Tea Party does not supply their endorsed candidates with money. There are too many low information voters and early voting wins the day. Guys like Peters can buy the election every time with 30 second $1000 per shot tv ads in the last month.