Many of our local media friends believe Carl DeMaio will be the pick from the right for San Diego mayor.
Meaning no one has reported what’s really happening behind the scenes.
Just about every deep-pocket center-right power player in town is encouraging both Kevin Faulconer and Carl DeMaio. Well, encouraging Faulconer in the mayor’s race, while pushing for DeMaio to stay the course and run for Congress.
In fact, some of the talk is that if DeMaio decides to opt for mayor, he will be doing so with fewer of the traditional power brokers — GOP and Lincoln Club — pushing for him to do so, especially as compared to the support he enjoyed in his last run. Many see him as the ideal candidate to take on Scott Peters.
Of course, that talk could be labeled as being spun by partisanly-Kevin peeps, hoping to scare Carl to stay put. No doubt, some will say this very blog post is meant to have the same purpose.
But, knowing DeMaio doesn’t scare over such “talk,” I’m simply sharing some, even much, of the behind-the-scenes discussion taking place as shared by a few credible insiders.
It’s not like DeMaio can’t argue he was the one that put his name on the line last year, or even that he might be mayor now had Filner been more of “known” quantity.
It’s quite possible we see a scenario that involves both Faulconer and DeMaio running to restore sanity to City Hall. One thing is certain — it’s going to be hard for either of these two not to run for mayor.
Would that be so bad? That may depend on how many run from the left. The possible field just grew to include Mike Aguirre.
Polls are being examined and meetings are occurring this weekend, holiday or not, so things could change. But a serious question is whether momentum is swinging in Faulconer’s direction.
As they say, stay tuned.
Comments 50
One thing is certain, which is that Carl DeMaio is in the drivers seat here. His decision will make Kevin Faulconer’s decision for him. I agree that there are many variables at play, and it will be interesting to see what Carl decides to do.
This is a great example of trading 1 almost certainly for 2 very likelies. Carl and Kevin can both win their respective races, and btw lets save the taxpayers an election and win the Mayor’s race outright by having only 1 strong candidate
Being in Peters district I want to see him gone. If Carl jumps I want to know who is the back up. I’m not sold on Kirk Jorgenson – he’s running on military credentials that are weaker than mine so I know he doesn’t have much to run on.
Revolvis clients don’t run against each other. That’s not the way it works in this little world. Fleischman’s comment about DeMaio being in the driver’s seat is 100% accurate, which is why its too bad for Faulconer that he didn’t hedge his resources.
As for support, the RPSD will do what DeMaio wants, but the Lincoln Club is more level-headed. You can also bet that the NRCC is watching this one. They have indicated that they are willing to invest in CD-52, IF the race is winnable in 2014. To do that, there needs to be certainty about the candidate while there is still enough time for those investments to yield results by Nov, 2014. Every day that passes increases the risk of those investments.
Carl being in the driver’s seat means that he really has the single-handed potential to screw up both races. The worst thing he can do is delay. He needs to make a decision soon and stick with it.
Doesn’t Faulconer seem like the more practical choice for Congress, particularly that district? DeMaio seems like his life revolves around San Diego politics, and thus would be best choice for mayor?
If DeMaio went after the mayor’s seat, it seems logical that Faulconer would be the candidate to contend for the Congressional seat. Kirk Journotsgonnawin doesn’t have the name recognition, financing, or political experience to defeat Peters. Defeating incumbents is incredibly difficult.
I always suspected that when Fletcher endorsed Peters for Congress in 2012, he was betting that Bilbray would win, and then intended to run against him in 2014.
While I’m rambling, I also think the Miami Heat will 3peat.
Mr. Schroeder,
I think we are in violent agreement on the first part of your statement…however, I have met and spoken with Mr. Jorgensen, and have met and spoken to scores of some very influential and astute political followers that have had a chance to meet and get a true sense of his fervent desire to serve his nation, once again, and clearly has a much greater military CV than either De Maio or Peters…and why is that important??
Because we are, fundamentally, still a tribal (nation-state), communal society that puts great emphasis on those that can lead us through peril and tribulations…in this day and age, they are asymmetrical threats such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and nefarious criminal elements who will sell any thing to anyone to get what they want…often the harm or deaths of innocent Americans….if you read Mr. Jorgensen’s bio, he was doing just that. Having worked in the Human Intelligence arena myself, I can say unequivocally that Mr. Jorgensen was selected for and completed the “Bentley” of human intelligence operations courses…and graduated with the “highest credentials”…now, if you don’t know precisely what that means, that means you don’t have to need to know…however, it means in plain English, he was entrusted with carrying out our nations “most” sensitive” and most critical human intelligence operations…the one’s they only reward you with a “viewing” of your award in some innocuous room in the basement of some three-letter acronym organization with a plate of vanilla wafers and diet Pepsis…
I have every reason to believe you, and other GOP-ers are sincere in their observations about this candidates viability and so on…I would caution you to tread very carefully about statements such as “his credentials are weaker than mine”…”Immodest” is the kindest word for what you are insinuating…
I would invite to meet Mr. Jorgensen, attend a fundraiser or mixer. He has been endorsed thus far by Duncan Hunter Sr, and recently the CEO of Titan Corporation, along with several combat veterans…you will find however, he is reluctant to speak of his exploits as a combat operator in the realm of human intelligence operations in hostile environments. He was the Commanding officer of the largest single Counter-Intelligence unit ever assembled by the Marine Corps in combat, and personally directed operations that led to the identification, location, capture, and trial of several war-criminals in the Former Yugoslavia in front of the Hague.
…By any reasonable, viable, and reputable measure…that is anything but “weak.” But besides any of those tremendous and valiant endeavors, accomplishments, and achievements…. the single reason I will vote for Kirk Jorgensen is because he would never…. ever, volunteer unilaterally to share with you…to gain votes…and to ingratiate himself that way…he is NOT a professional politician…he is, however, a Leader. It is his background and his history…you should look into that before we start measuring our “swords” on who was where, and when.
With regards to “name recognition”…the logical stream to that is , “well, you can’t get there from here…” and we would only go with the pool of re-tread politicians all swirling around and slithering up to the same plate to bounce from city council, mayor, County Supervisor…all the while regurgitating the same failed antics of self-angrandizment and eroding compromise…what a pathetic end…we need to infuse new blood, with new approaches and bold resolve and not be tethered to the marass of local hand-ringing and back-slapping politics…been to a San Diego County GOP meeting lately? It isn’t the branding…its the execution…many of the same tired old hacks swirling around all finaggling back-room deals to get their turn for the snout in the trough…
I’ll take “Kirk Journotsgonnawin”..and , it’s J O R G E N S E N…really not that difficult…over a faux GOP-er in DeMaio, or the husband of a uber-rich liberal in Scott Peters any day.
“Revolvis clients don’t run against each other.”
Quite different scenario here. Kevin and Carl haven’t had the success they’ve had by being owned by a consultant. Jason and Duane I’d guess would say the same thing. No, if one of them doesn’t run, it will not be due to that concern.
I know this is all about Kevin and Carl. But I’d like to see Ron Roberts as mayor.
Just an observation I’ve made over the years.
And this is not about being owned, it’s about placing ones resources in a single basket. Faulconer has robbed himself of self-determination by having the same campaign/strategy/political team as DeMaio. Just look at who his Chief of Staff is. Perhaps in a longer race he would have time to find a new team, build infrastructure, and secure additional funding sources. But not for a 90 day campaign. And so, he’s a talented leader (as you pointed out) who is stuck playing second fiddle when he didn’t have to be. This is also not an indictment of Revolvis, they’re great at what they do, and are in a similarly awkward position between two valuable clients.
Also, I disagree that Jorgensen doesn’t have a chance, but he needs time. This is why it is important that whatever decision DeMaio is going to make, that he make it soon,
Thank you for your reply, “Founding Father.” I certainly respect Kirk’s service as I do everyone that has served, it’s also better than Scott Peters’ by far. But contrary to your statement “he would never…. ever, volunteer unilaterally to share with you…to gain votes…and to ingratiate himself that way…he is NOT a professional politician…he is, however, a Leader. It is his background and his history…you should look” but that is what he is doing and that is what his history and background is – military service. From his bio, endorsements, and facebook page everything is emphasizing his military background. In a discussion with fellow veterans, we all wondered if served on higher level staffs. Company level work is great stuff but it doesn’t give you the big picture experience we think one needs as a Congressman. This isn’t “measuring swords,” it’s what military positions would be best for those that would represent us. Possibly it’s an omission on his webpage, but I’d prefer experience that gave him a big picture.
Now I’d be happy with just his company level experience if he has something else to strengthen his appeal and looking at his issues page I don’t see that. It’s basically boiler plate – oppose Obamacare, one page tax form, etc. I don’t see a concrete or fresh idea that would make him as a new comer appealing. This concerns me because I naturally prefer veterans in Congress – we need more of them – but so far all he has is that he served in a junior command during OIF and generic stances on issues. He says he a leader. Ok, so take some strong stances on issues and early – Syria? Speak up. Idea to replace to Obamacare? Let’s hear it. He needs name recognition and being out front as a leader should be how to do it. He hasn’t done that, he’s playing it safe.
As I said earlier, I live in the district Kirk wants to represent and I don’t want Peters to win again. I hope I meet Kirk and he alleviates my concerns because ultimately I want to vote for a candidate for what they stand for not just because I don’t like Peters.
Elliot,
I’ve sat back and watched Founding Father try to defend Kirk and thought he (or she) did a fine job until he (or she) said this :
“over a faux GOP-er in DeMaio”
Ugh. Was THAT necessary?
Jorgensen can beat Peters. I’ve met him and vetted him pretty extensively. He’s upbeat, articulates constitutional fidelity better than DeMaio, and has pretty solid conservative credentials. I’m not THRILLED with his approach to protecting privacy and restraining the NSA but it’s a heckuva lot better than most Republicans.
Jorgensen understand the constitution and the restraints it would put upon him as a legislator. He understands that the private sector does most everything better than a politburo and wants to get the politburo out of the private sector. He may personally hold traditional social conservative positions (like I do) but knows that they are far lower on the totem pole than the fiscal mess and blurred division of powers in DC (like I do).
DeMaio is my pick for the 52nd House but I’d donate to and walk precincts for Kirk Jorgensen if Carl chooses to run for Mayor. I’d be really happy with him in the House too.
Reach out to him—he’s accessible
If Kevin runs and wins there would be a special election for his seat in D2 that Lorie Zapf is already actively campaigning for. It would cause a lot of conflict in the D2 seat because Lorie wouldn’t run for the D2 special election (she already has a seat on the council). So we’d have to decide on a new Republican representative for D2 who would probably run for that same seat in 2014. Pushing Lorie out.
From Twitter…
@JW_August: Lincoln Club WANTS DeMaio to stay in 52nd race, supporting Faulconer, thinking: CD could help more at top of ticket 4 future council races
Our cursory analysis indicates that a vacancy created by a Faulconer victory would require an election no sooner than the regularly scheduled June 14 primary for district 2. If someone has info that is different please jump in.
Mr. Schroeder,
I agree Mr. Jorgensen should, and probably will, define greater fidelity on those issues you mentioned…Syria, Replacement for ObamaCare, (Although, in all fairness to the “new guy”, not even our Republican congressional core leaders have articulated that…and they have had 4 years to bake that cake). He has to…but we are still over a year out…he is clearly a smart capable guy, and I have every confidence he will rise to the occasion to better flush out those important and salient issues.
With regards to “company grade” experience…John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Teddy Roosevelt, John Kerry, George Bush (s), Bob Dole, George McGovern, Duncan Hunter Jr., Tom Cotton, and scores of other successful campaign and political candidates (we can debate their value in another form) all came to the political scene with “company grade” experience or less. Some were involved in heroic and truly courageous episodes…Kennedy PT 109, Bush 41, Bob Dole, McGovern (who was a bomber pilot over Germany as a young Army Air Corps officer) among others who all served their nation with the highest distinctions for valor and bravery…others won the “combat lottery” such as Hunter Jr. and Cotton, who were called to serve, and participated in combat honorably…others embellished their war records, such as Richard Blumenthal (who was never even in Vietnam after claiming having served two combat tours there, and yet was elected to the US Senate) and Al Gore, along with John Kerry…these last mentioned were willing to lie, embellish, and craft false narratives because they innately understood what “combat” and military service invokes for our citizens…someone who’s mettle, their character, their fortitude are all forged in the fires of adversity…their “clay” if you will starts with those fundamental experiences…we have had worthy leaders who were not warriors (Ronald Reagan comes to mind) that innately knew what leadership and political savvy meant where his convictions were forged perhaps by observation or maybe in his upbringing…in either case, these are simply the building blocks for steadfast leadership…as for “high level staffs”…I can also unequivocally declare as having worked on several “high level staffs (to include the NATO staff in Brussels and Mons, EUCOM Staff in Stuttgart, and as a member of the Country Team as a diplomat) that many of the “big picture” officers I wouldn’t have followed into a strip club if they had a fist full of hundreds…there was a reason they (and perhaps me) were on the “high level” staffs and why others were in line units leading troops in combat for the last 10 years.
Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, Susan Rice were all on “high level” staffs…who also brought you Benghazi..
Mr. Jorgensen is undoubtedly in his nascent stages of his political intentions. However, we cannot dismiss outright that he doesn’t possess the requisite skills and attributes that can, and in his case, do, transfer to steady, competent, and tested vigilance and upright character…he has the “clay”…which is more than I can say for DeMaio or Peters in the national security arenas…also, remember, as a highly placed intelligence operative, part of his screening, assessment and evaluation was his ability to assess the “big picture” as it related to geo-political, diplomatic, and strategic concerns for the US in addition to Order of Battle and troop concentrations. We have lots of “collectors” for that boiler plate intel…he was trained, deployed, and trusted as a CIA Accredited Case Officer…working with his agency counterparts, and dealing with extremely sensitive…and yes (wait for it)…HIGH-LEVEL, BIG-PICTURE” issues that had strategic implication for US National Security…that is why they sent him to the Farm and not the 35 Echo Course at Ft Huachuca.
I am intrigue and pleasantly pleased we have concerned and informed residents like yourself in the 52nd..Lets keep the dialogue and gentlemanly channels open…I think in any scenario, we add value to our political candidates with elucidation and transparent and rigorous debate.
Mr. Brady…I could not agree with you more on the one significant point you raised… “Jorgensen can beat Peters. I’ve met him and vetted him pretty extensively. He’s upbeat, articulates constitutional fidelity better than DeMaio, and has pretty solid conservative credentials.”
There is NO daylight between us…
However, as one of my favorite radio personalities emphasizes often, I am seeking clarity over agreement…
Regarding my comment on DeMaio as a Faux Republican- Let’s unpack that a little, shall we?
Faux= imitation, artificial, false…. again, clarity over agreement.
There are essentially four pillars of republican-conservative thought that have been at the core of our beliefs for decades, if not since the Abraham Lincoln and even the Founding Fathers.
1. Fiscal responsibility (including lowering taxes and deregulation)
2. National Security (Republicans adhere to the Realist view of international politics where a strong nation state having the ability to fend for itself, in addition to participating in beneficial bi-lateral and multi-lateral security apparatuses, which translate along with the first precept for a Free Market economy and defense therein)
3. Pursuit of Life, Liberty, Happiness (imbedded at the core of this is the Right to Life issue, and it has been the cornerstone for Republican Presidents and major political players for decades)
4. Honoring the Family (Embedded in this is the moral pillar of Traditional Marriage and promoting the millennia-long Judeo-Christian precept within the construct of one man and one woman as parents for a nuclear family)
There may be others that could be added to this, however I think in an honest debate those four core-precepts cover the DNA-of the Republican Party over the last several decades.
Clearly, in Mr. DeMaio’s case, there appears to be a faction within the existing Republican Party(especially here in San Diego) that is attempting or wishing to alter those precepts to either diminish the significance of the last two (Life, and Marriage) to a point of irrelevancy to political survivability and viability, or eliminate them all together. The vast majority of Republicans, including tens of thousands within the 52nd, have clarity that Life and Marriage are sacrosanct to a national Republican platform. Without those two, candidates can win, but they are not Republicans…they become something else…which is their legal and moral prerogative…no problem there…
It is incongruous for a Republican to latch on to the easy stuff, but very difficult to “thread the needle” on Life and marriage..( i.e. easy stuff= Fiscal responsibility and National Security …who wants to be fiscally irresponsible and nationally unsecure…its analogous to Liberals feigning environmental concerns in accusing anyone who opposes their radical agenda must hate clean air, and wants to kill children. Of course, ludicrous)…I give Mr. DeMaio kudos for being so blatantly open in his rejection of both the Life issue and the Traditional Marriage issue…that, ergo, disqualifies one, based on the universally accepted and decades long understanding of countless presidential and national republican figures definition of “Republican”.
Now, Mr. DeMaio certainly can (and apparently has) cajoled and crafted his “Republican creds” with only one (thus far) of the 4 recognized pillars…Fiscal Responsibility. We do not know yet what his larger more specific policies regarding national security will be…but we conclusively know his stance on Life and Marriage…and they are NOT Republican stances…they may be popular, they may be “evolutionary”, they may be tolerant….but, make no mistake…they are NOT Republican. His “republican” chair tips on only one leg….
This, I can assure you, is not lost on the tens of thousands of Republicans and Conservations in the 52nd regarding Mr. DeMaio.
Republicans in these two fundamental precepts are painted and demonized for being “intolerant” or “myopic…”…I say, no…they are convicted…they have taken a moral stance, not a legal or social one with their political radar on in a crass attempt to collect more votes (In Mr. DemAio’s case, specifically with the Marriage issue, I have every reason to believe he too is convicted that Gay Marriage is acceptable and should be recognized, promoted, and celebrated in our public venues, including our grade schools.). Mr. DeMaio’s dilemma is not dissimilar to both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden’s hypocrisy…Either Pelosi and Biden are democrats and not Catholics, or they are Catholic and cannot stand with democrats on Pro-Abortion or Homosexual Marriage. Mr. DeMaio is either a Republican who accepts his party’s platform of Pro-Life and Traditional Marriage, or he believes in Gay-Marriage and Abortion, thus disqualifying him as a Republican.
It is his choice, and the choice of the voters of the 52nd CD…but it is also clear he is NOT a Republican…no more than Nathan Fletcher would be one soliciting Union votes.
I defend Mr. Jorgensen, not because he needs the defending…but because there are a lot of spontaneous labels and political “bins” one is placed in without researching or fully understanding the full picture. I think in the case of Carl DeMaio, too many people have not pulled the string on his political philosophy and his true “credentials”, and in the case of Mr. Jorgensen, not enough have done their due diligence on his viability and true republican core precepts. .
“Founding Father”
Thank you for your sound reply. I never wrote Kirk off but with the rumors of DeMaio possibly going for Mayor and the only other candidate (Mr Jorgenson) very vague on issues I was concerned. His company command with Marines I respect and then I saw on another website he was a Lcdr in the USCGR. Great command time usually leads to greater command time active duty or reserves, but a jump from the Marines to the Coast Guard didn’t add up. As a fellow officer, I think you understand my concern based on the limited info that he was putting out. But you’ve made a great case and peaked my interest in learning more about him. Furthermore, Brian Brady knows where I stand on issues and Brian’s vetting of Kirk is a big plus in my book. So I hope I catch Mr Jorgensen’s next event or meet with him in the near future.
I’d debate those pillars and that’s an interesting conversation which only happens in the thinking-man’s party. BUT… If I wanted ideological purity I’d have a hard time working within the coalition which is the modern Republican party (only 5-10 legislators fit my small government, constitutional fidelity model). I’d suggest that you might consider that as well (or just call me a faux-Republican if it makes you feel better).
Speaking of clarity, you might just vet both candidates yourself. I think you’ll find that there is little daylight between them:
Both have said that social issues aren’t what is driving them. That may be disappointing to social conservatives but it is a fact. Neither civil marriage equality nor abortion are going to be bills either of those men sponsor or co-sponsor.
Both support a strong national defense. I’d be curious to see how both react to the traditional neoconservative idea that America needs to “spread democracy around the globe”. My guess, after speaking with both of them, is that both men reject that notion and favor a robust, strong defense force rather than a “global force for good”.
I like that Carl is more proactive with ideas. He offers ideas while Kirk speaks in generalities (for now). I like that Kirk talks about the constitution. He seems rooted in the idea of constitutional restraint while Carl hasn’t mentioned much of it.
Both men are excellent candidates…excellent Republican candidates. I think Carl could be Speaker of the House one day if he chooses this path. While his reform ideas probably don’t go far enough to satisfy my small government vision, they are a heckuva start. He’s my choice.
Should he opt to be Mayor of San Diego, I’d have no problem working along side of you to get Jorgensen elected to Congress….and I’d feel pretty good about it.
Mr. Brady,
I’ll take you up on the campaigning for the next Republican candidate for the 52CD….If Politico is accurate in their recent reporting, then I am confident that will be Mr. Jorgensen…perhaps wishful thinking on my part . But, yes, we can march, rally, and campaign together…I’ll bring the coffee. 🙂
Though this is not directed at you, you have raised an interesting issue with regards to “purity” and what that may constitute vis-à-vis the “modern” Republican Party. This is a challenge for “practical” politicians and their handlers and operatives who want to get elected, and those morally grounded members of the party that see a acquiescence of their long-held and core philosophies are to be essentially ignored for political expediency and the false notion we can out “left” the left.
It’s not “purity” Mr. Brady…its about clarity.
You mentioned both men are excellent candidates…
There is a scene in the classic fighter pilot movie “Top Gun.” Jester, played by Michael Ironside says to Maverick, Tom Cruise, about his unorthodox and “progressive” flying style… “Maverick, that was some of the best flying I’ve ever seen…right up to the time you got yourself killed…you never, ever, leave your wingman.”
For me, and I would venture to say, thousands of Republicans in the 52CD, and tens of millions across our nation, our convictions, in this case Traditional Marriage, and Pro-Life, are our political-philosophical equivalence of the “wingman.”…From a technical, and I’ll even stipulate, a practical point, the “social issues” as you alluded to are not cornerstone issues from a congressional or representative governance standpoint (at least not any time soon)…but they are benchmarks and definitive window’s into one’s character and way of thinking. They capture the essence of one’s posture on issues across the political, social, philosophical, and moral spectra. For thousands in 52CD, and millions across this great nation, they still see the Republican Party as the party of Reagan…and yes, Reagan was all for “opening the tent”, but not at the cost of fundamentally altering the core-foundation of what makes a Republican, a Republican. I would not suppose to know yours, or the hearts of “socially liberal” (little “l”, not meant to be pejorative) minded Republican voters…however, I am confident Ronald Reagan would agree abandoning those key pillars of traditional Republican thought would be a wholesale re-definition of the party. I fear that is precisely what is happening in an attempt to “widen” the aperture for greater appeal. I submit, with the nascent idea of the more politically palatable and “inclusive” minded “New (Neo) Republicans, we cannot out “left” the left by adopting incongruent positions that while attempting to “include” some, we will segregate many who, as I do, believe the Republican party is the party where Traditional Marriage and Life are sacrosanct and at the core of who we are.
In the spirit of clarity, I am not naïve to the practicality of Republicans “winning” to get our fiscal house in order up on Capital Hill…no one wants us to begin bringing down the deficit and adhering to a steady infusion of fiscal and political sanity more than me. However, and the San Diego County Republican Party needs to acknowledge this, a large swath of Republicans cannot, and will not, sell their moral convictions for a temporary political gain.
I think the orchestrated temperance of the “social issues” might in fact be a decent and prudent strategy…but ignoring it outright, or taking concerted steps to eliminate it from the public discourse is a position a vast swath of Republicans will not accept…that is also a practical reality the SD Central Committee and Republican leaders throughout the nation must acknowledge. Or they run the risk of alienating some of their most ardent supporters who cannot accept a politician, as a Republican, in the form of a Carl DeMaio.
Politics, at its core, is about compromise. Yet, from a moral perspective, many in the Republican Party cannot allow the social decay and watering down of their fundamental beliefs that both brought them to, and keep them in, the Republican Party. If, as The Committee Chairman often proclaims, we are the party of Reagan, then we sure need to adhere to what Reagan believed made the party…Life and Marriage are paramount to that claim.
Mr. Schroeder,
You are indeed an officer, and a gentleman. Thank you for the kind words, and genuine attempt to look at my position through a different lens.
In Mr. Jorgensen’s case, and I know you understand this, we cannot simply look at the traditional conventional career path of your “Mark-1, Mod-1” company grade or even junior field grade officer. The vetting conducted by anyone for Mr. Jorgensen for his congressional aspirations will pale in comparison to the “vetting” conducted for his acceptance to, and subsequent deployment as, a Full-Cycle Agency-trained Case Officer…that takes him out of the focused and often limited, albiet important, aspects that concern most Company-Grade knuckleheads (and, yes, I can get away with it, because I was, of course, once myself a knuckleheaded company grade guy…)
That is why I am so adament that Mr. Jorgensen’s expereinces are viewed through that lens, and not the standard junior officer lens afforded our brave and valiant line O’s at the platoon, company, or even battalion level..They all had their “fields of fire” and “lateral limits” they needed to adhere to..in Jorgensen’s case, we need to understand his “lateral limits” were indeed much broader, much more sensetive, and had ramifications, not only of life and death of his troops in combat/hostile environs, but also of Americans here at home and abroad outside of the construct of the Laws of Land Wafare. Kirk Jorgensen was one of those guys that while millions of Americans were sleeping, he is in dark places, meeting nefarious charaters, in often unfriendly or even hostile environs…many with the fervant desire, or tacit acceptance, of killing innocent Americans, and in some case, he himself!!
But I understand now that you get that. Thank you for listening, I in turn appreciate your feedback!
Founding Father;
Thank you for clarifying the issues. Your pointing out that the “modern Republican Party” advocates segregating the Traditional Marriage and Life wing of Republicans somewhere in the back of the tent. What they do not get is that there is an exit door at the back of the tent. You point out that fiscal responsibility is not the only issue that counts. Man really does not live by bread alone. A “Neo Republican Party” has lost its’ salt, is tasteless and cannot preserve anything.
Amen to that, Brother..I couldn’t have put it more succinctly myself.
I just posted a comment on Mr. DeMaio’s article about his decison on running for mayor (or not…lol), that unpacks the pitfalls and approach by some in hanging their “republican creds” as something as narrow as “fiscal responsibility”. I guess one could make an argument that socially conservative Republicans are essentially doing the same thing by “hanging on” to the Life and Marraige…the difference as I see it is the magnitude, and morally imperative aspects and overall pervasiveness of these two issues as they relate to the essences of what constitues a civil, morally grounded, and decent society. Whether a politicain adds or subtracts a billion here or there, while disconcerting, isn’t going to morally bankrupt 300 years of American social, philosophical, moral trajectory.
Hold on a second here! In all the soap boxing we’re missing the real issues; Jorgensen and DeMaio have very few differences between them on social issues other than words on a website.
Ask each man how he feels about abortion and both will say they have no plans to introduce legislation to overturn Roe v Wade. Neither will vote to provide government funding of abortion. There really is no clarity there.
Each candidate recognizes that, with the Supreme Court rulings on DOMA and Prop 8, that this matter is best left to the states. While DeMaio says he supports civil marriage equality, Jorgensen has made no effort to say that he would introduce legislation to circumvent the DOMA ruling.
Pragmatically, there is no difference there. I’m happy to be proven wrong but I interviewed both men. They either (a) lied to my face or (b) really don’t plan on introducing legislation on pro-life or traditional marriage issues.
If Founding Father’s support is indicative of where Mr. Jorgensen’s priorities lie (social issues), Scott Peters will finally have his first easy election.
I’m puzzled: If to be a good Republican, one has to be a strong advocate to the principle of following the Constitution (a position I strongly favor, BTW), what is the constitutional justification for the FEDERAL government defining marriage, outlawing or condoning abortion, outlawing drugs (and booze), or other “social” issues?
It seems to me that the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly leave most such policy decisions to the states — or to the individuals — unless the Constitution is amended (as it was for Prohibition).
I think Mr. Brady has made the pragmatic argument thtat provides the temperance necessary as the social issues are NOT leading or driving political indicators.(i.e, no one, including me, is advocating any candidate leads with abortion or marriage as their single defining POLITICAL agenda..nor do I advocate,symbolize, or foretell what either Mr. Jorgensen or DeMaio MAY do. )
I am advocating, however, that in our fervant desire to promote certain candiates, and with that certain positons that have been accepted and understood as “Republican”, we ensure we do not lose sight of our own core competencies…as Republicans. As mentioned earlier, I get we need to “win” in order to begin the long slog to get our fiscal and political sanity back…what I find interesting is the ability and advocating for candidates, anyone, to lead with the choice to abandon core principles at the outset? Mr. Brady makes a salient point that neither candidate as a congressman would be in the forfront for either the marriage or abortion issue…however, is it not prudent for those concerned about such issues to choose and support, and campaign, advocate for a candidate that beleves as you do? Because much is spectulative, it is the MORAL fiber and internal guidance of a candidate that I am interested in…hell, we could “what if” the blazes out of what a DeMaio, Jorgensen, Peters, Francis MIGHT do…but with the intiial internal MORAL gyros established, I have a much better idea what a particular candidate MAY do.
I, as you do, am confident, Messrs Jorgensen and DeMaio will have the practical discernment to address each issue through their respective morral and necessary political lens..be it DOMA, or Abortion..However, .as a voter, I want to ensure what lens that is? I do not nor would I suppose to speak for either man..I do however, and am confident, I speak for thousands of voters in the 52CD that believe as I do that from the foundations as Republicans START with those aformentioned core-values and precepts…a start..:)
Could everyone please SPELL CHECK before you post?
Of corse…
🙂
IPad won’t autocorrect! 🙁
(alas if this a duplicate..I was not convinced my previous comment had “posted” from my IPad..this is from Desktop..please forgive)
I think Mr. Brady’s approach is again a pragmatic and applied one…as presented before, and with which I agreed, neither DeMaio nor Jorgensen, or Francis or Faulkoneur will be confronted, nor have expressed fervent desires to pursue DOMA action or Abortion issues as a leading POLITICAL agenda item. Nor do I have any clue as to what Messrs DeMaio or Jorgensen WILL do regarding these social issues.
My point is that we, as Republicans, have an obligation to understand and from that, discern, based on those core competencies (and for me, and thousands in the 52CD, tried and true, life long precepts as captured, identified, and exemplified by Ronald Reagan), what a candidate, when confronted with a scenario or situation that has not been asked, vetted, or discussed in detail, what said candidate MAY do as a result of the MORAL internal navigation and positions they espouse or adhere to. There “clay,” if you will.
The greater concern is the idea that as we proverbially pole-vault over “what-if mouse droppings” we loose the bigger picture, and then once again, many voters will ask themselves, “What does this guy BELIEVE?” We, as Republicans, need to ask, “What does our candidate believe?” I have no reason to believe either DeMaio or Jorgensen would be so bold as to be untruthful in a vetting process…DeMaio is too smart for that, and Jorgensen ostensibly is too principled for that…
Not soap-boxing, Mr. Brady…but discussing, presenting, and yes, advocating for the voices of tens of thousands that may not have the political savvy you do, or the ability to “soap-box” as I do ☺…they simply do not want to be without the political chair when the campaigning and supporting music stops in having their concerns, their positions, and yes, their moral convictions heard and considered in that process.
HQ,
Fortunately for Mr. Jorgensen, and DeMaio, I am not indicative of what any candidate will advocate at this point…:)
As aforementioned, neither candidate would be politically obtuse enough to LEAD with either Abortion, or Same-Sex Marriage. That is, regardless of how much “soapboxing” one might do, not a prudent or a practical political strategy. However, I believe there is a broader and larger battle looming for the identity and fundamental core-principles of the Republican Party. This is indicative of perhaps tacit, or direct, pressure from National Republican organizations to “open the tent flap” wider to attract a broader base of voters and supporters, in exchange for the diminution, or more disturbing, neutralizing, the morally convicted, socially conservative, members of the Republican Party as they stand, and discern issues through the lens of right to Life and Marriage. (kind of like the “opinionated” uncle at Thanksgiving…you love him, but maybe its better he is not at the dinner table) I am not advocating here whether one needs to choose or defend one or the other. However, there appears to be a faction within the local establishment that is prepared to forgo those voters, and their concerns, for more politically bland and perhaps perceived (through crack market research no doubt) positions that “poll” better. The idea here is not to make the case for a traditional Republican position…it is to change the perception, fiber, and understanding of what Republicans are…this may be the future…but, I am just seeking clarity as to what the political leadership at the local, regional, and national level or truly advocating…
“People don’t by the “what” you are selling…they buy the “why” you are selling it?” Simon Sinek
Mr. Brady (et al),
Forgive me…undergrad was the best seven years of my life, so I may be a little slow to the uptake. You raise an interesting and important point.
“Ask each man how he feels about abortion and both will say they have no plans to introduce legislation to overturn Roe v Wade. Neither will vote to provide government funding of abortion. There really is no clarity there.
Each candidate recognizes that, with the Supreme Court rulings on DOMA and Prop 8, that this matter is best left to the states. While DeMaio says he supports civil marriage equality, Jorgensen has made no effort to say that he would introduce legislation to circumvent the DOMA ruling.
Pragmatically, there is no difference there. I’m happy to be proven wrong but I interviewed both men. They either (a) lied to my face or (b) really don’t plan on introducing legislation on pro-life or traditional marriage issues.”
So, assuming neither lied, are you saying you are ok that either man may believe what he believes, as long as he doesn’t do anything about it?
Neither Mr. Jorgensen, nor Mr. DeMaio are running on social issue platforms…on this we are clear…however, where I may lose your point is when we make the leap that there is “no difference there?” (and yes, I stipulate you were making a pragmatic argument) However, one believes that life starts at conception, while the other believes a woman has the right to chose to terminate that life when she so choses (within California law, I presume)…one recognizes the sanctity of Life (a Republican Platform issue), while the other advocates a woman’ decision to abort said life…(a Democratic Platform issue)
I could not think of two more diametrically opposed views, and therefore “positions” than that…This illustrates my original point…As Republicans, setting aside the political pragmatism for a moment, we must ask what each candidate believes?
Perhaps, as members of the 52CD, and under the auspices of The San Diego Republican Party, we should ask what the officers, chairpersons, and committee members believe…. that might provide clarity as to where the Republican Party in San Diego is headed, and what core principles they believe and adhere to.
What do the Republican Party Platform Bylaws say? That might add additional clarity.
Gosh, if we held candidates to that platform, nobody would get out of a primary. That’s no reason to scrap the platform though.
I’m not looking for ideological purity — if I did, neither would get my support as I’m a strict constitutionalist.
I’m closing with my original thought:
1- both are good candidates
2- DeMaio’s my pick
3- Jorgensen is a great back up for me and I support him
Thank you, Mr. Brady, for the discussion, and clairty…I still offer to bring the coffee…:)
My closing thought….what good is a “platform” if the organization advocates to bypass it to succeed? Perhaps its not the “platform”…perhaps it the organization.
I’m still waiting for a GOP pundit to explain to me how a good Constitutionalist in federal office can push for fed laws on the social issues. See my post above.
Mr. Rider,
Not a “GOP Pundit”
Not sure what constitutes a “good constitutionalists”
Not sure what specific “social issues” need be addressed.
Not wanting to commit a “diatribe”, and with the above in mind, here goes;
Our Founding Fathers entrusted us with certain inalienable rights. They forged those rights from their fervent belief in a Creator. This was not “religious nuttery” or “zealotry”…it was in their DNA (admittedly to varying degrees). They passed that to us with the unsaleable notion we as an educated and moral people we would accept and adhere to, and maintain those inalienable rights in the confines of a decent, civil, and morally-based society. That they could not be taken away. However, the Federal Government has, and does, both prohibit and demand we do things as citizens…We cannot engage in incest, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or armed robbery…we cannot kidnap people, or sell illegal fire arms. It demands we pay taxes, attain proper licencing and insurance to drive, follow environmental law, and honor binding contracts. The idea that the government doesn’t or shouldn’t do anything, even in the strictest libertarian sense, is invalid. Our politicians, when sworn into office, swear to uphold the constitution, and thus the laws bound and crafted by it. For millions and millions of Americans, they see a role, some more limited than others, in the idea that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness in it embedded the notion of the right to Life. Hence, the Unborn children, and the sanctity of that life as basic, humane, and just. Killing unborn children, in thier eyes, is murder. In the case of Marriage, as our nation was forged, and the constitution within it, we have adhered to and followed, if not operated in, a Judeo-Christian construct of morality, ethics, and civility that has a history spanning 5000 years. Embedded in that is the biblical notion that marriage, as defined in that context, is between a man and a woman. Also within that context is not murdering, committing adultery, stealing (you get the idea)…and we have both Federal and State laws that reflect that.
So, it is not out of either historical precedence from a constitutional, or moral, or histporical background that one can beleive in the constitution, and still not want the deaths of innocent children, or the teaching of homsexual practices and lifestyles to their living children being forced by federal or state mandate.
An example of where the GOP failed in understanding and upholding these principles as passed down by our Founding Fathers in in the incongruity for the Republican party as it relates to social issues could not be more poignantly illustrated than by the two current presumptive SD GOP nominees in Kevin Faulkouner (Mayor) and Carl DeMaio (52CD). Both took and oath of office, both ran on GOP-funded and supported platforms, and both negated the will of millions of their fellow Californians when they opposed the will of those Californians in opposing Prop 8..in Faulkouner’s case, he voted to have San Diego City oppose Prop 8…it was law, for which he swore to uphold and defend, and he outright disobeyed it and countermanded millions of Republicans in the process.
Understanding that Faulkouner was a regional politician, but it had national ramification…In DeMaio’s case, he will be sought, or rejected, in coalition issues within the National Republican representation. Because of his stances on Abortion and Gay-Marriage, he may be either isolated, signaled out, or open to ridicule, from both sides of the aisle, in his ability to deal with other social or moral issues at the Federal level with other GOP-ers that actually adhere and follow the National Platform.
FF,
Let’s cut right to the chase. Carl DeMaio is gay and believes that he and others with a similar sexual orientation should be treated equally under the law to heterosexuals. Do you believe this disqualifies Mr. DeMaio from being a true Republican?
“Founding Father” — and where in the CONSTITUTION does it put the federal government in the business of regulating armed robbery, “bestiality,” abortion, gambling, drivers’ licenses, prostitution, etc. etc.? These are STATE issues.
Make your case using the Constitution — not what the morality was at the time it was passed.
Riddle me this — in order to make alcohol illegal on a federal basis, it was fully understood that this new role for the federal government could not be Constitutional without lawfully amending the Constitution. Thus the 18th Amendment was passed.
Bad idea, it turned out, but constitutionally enacted. So where is the amendment putting the feds in the drug prohibition business?
Here’s the point. Like too many “conservatives,” you likely give lip service to wanting elected federal representatives who will support and defend the Constitution of the United States — and operate within its limitations.
For all your blather, it’s apparent that you don’t believe that AT ALL. You want the federal government to be a semi-theocracy, imposing or prohibiting personal behavior — decisions the Constitution clearly leaves to the states, or to the individual.
You REALLY need to change your chosen moniker.
Do I believe that DeMaio being gay disqualifies him?
Absolutely not!
I believe that his position on Abortion, and his position, and subsequent support of opposing the will of his fellow Californians, and within that millions of Republicans vis-à-vis Prop 8’s passing and his negation and ignoring therein, disqualifies him from being a Republican.
If you doubt me, I kindly refer you to the 2012 California Party Platform ratified by The Californian Republican party…it isn’t what FF simply believes…
It is what the Party believes.
However, that is a great question, and one the Republican Party of San Diego, and its members needs to ask itself.
Mr. DeMaio is entitled to his opinion, and conviction. So am I. I have chosen the Republican Party to exercise and lever that position. Perhaps he, like Nathan Fletcher, can find a Party that best suits his convictions. However, I do not believe I, nor thousands of others with the RP, will simply accept the SDRP line that we need to sit at the kid’s table, and keep coloring. Reagan’s “tent” analogy works both ways…the flap lets some in, and allows for those disaffected to exit. There is one Carl DeMaio…there are thousands within the 52CD that will not vote for him, NOT because he is gay, but because he is NOT a Republican.
Mr. Rider,
There we go!!…such passion.
Are you telling me you don’t pay taxes? I mean, there is a secular, non-“conservative” fairly straight forward constitutional mandate…for one’s “blather” on the tax code and “fighting the man” you seem perfectly content with paying taxes in a country that has the second highest (corporate) tax rate in the world..or at least adhere to the premise.
Tell me, what is the difference, fundamentally, and morally, between the government demanding we pay taxes, and the demand we not murder unborn children? Or force people of faith or religious conviction to be subjected to lifestyle mandates in public fora that teach their grade school children that “Heather has Two Mommies” or the “Day and the Life or Uncle Steve and Aunt Trevor?”
You appear an educated man, Mr. Rider…do you actually think same-sex marriage, and all the “civil” intrusion and permeation of its “acceptance”, and impending adherence, will not be federally mandated as we saw with the Civil rights movement? We can debate the merits, or lack thereof, whether there is a critical and accurate analogy to that parallel, however the fervent same-sex proponents present it as such…so, are you as prepared to direct your passion to stopping a federally mandated approach to the federally mandated adherence and acceptance of the same-sex agenda as you appear to oppose “constitutionally” the desire by those advocating one-man/one-woman marriage construct or the aborting of children?
Not terribly, dare I say it…libertarian of you.
Perhaps you need to consider your moniker..to “I’m a Federalist when it suits my argument”…
Whatever one you choose, I’ll be here to continue collegial and civil discourse with you. 🙂
Ah, Mr. Rider, I was remiss…to answer your specific question…
“Founding Father” — and where in the CONSTITUTION does it put the federal government in the business of regulating armed robbery, “bestiality,” abortion, gambling, drivers’ licenses, prostitution, etc. etc.? These are STATE issues.”
…oh…but you have heard of federal crimes, right?
The Constitution itself identifies only three federal crimes – piracy, counterfeiting, and treason.
There is a steady “overcriminization” On this I am sure we can agree.
But federal law, federal crimes, within the construct of the Constitution, for which their are many, is pervasive. All are prosecutable by federal authorities…
Kidnapping, armed robbery, across stateline, racketerring (Prostitution), and the murder of unborn children are all Fedreal crimes, to name just a few.
18 USC Chapter 90A – PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
So, its it really that unprecedented?
“Blather” for one is conviction for another…
FF,
I appreciate a man (or woman) that has the courage of his/her convictions, but I am not the Republican Party Platform, nor am I the Democratic Party Platform and my convictions do not agree 100% with either of those platforms. I choose the party that MOST exemplifies my views. I am quite certain that most people are the same, so if you are saying that to be a Republican you must believe in and support 100% of the Platform 100% of the time, then I can say with certainty that you will have a very small party.
HQ,
Its not the “100%/100%” of the time/platform….
Its “100%” of the try…
Conviction isn’t not just what you can do…its about what you should do!
FF,
What if I don’t agree with ALL of the principles laid out in the Party’s Platform? Am I still supposed to TRY to adhere to them even if they violate my own moral compass?
Put another way, if I believe in lower taxes and gay marriage, can I not be a Republican or a Democrat?
Great Point, HQ…In a Democracy, we need to adhere to the standard of “majority rules, minority rights”…That would have to be a choice…a moral choice, that each individual would have to contend with…it would not be, as some may try to craft, the fact that this person or that is gay within the party…it would, however need to be accepted that as long as the platform set the tone, tenor, and strategic vision for the party, then those within it would have to respect that, and the will of the majority. We would respect the voices, opinions and stances one may have, but as long as we have a party system, and it is the vehicle and venue for which candidates aspire and are supported to win against their political opponent, then the platform is the beacon, the guide posts, the strategy for which all the other members within the majority were drawn.
Founding Father — I’m still waiting for you to point to the section of the Constitution that puts the feds in the law enforcement business normally reserved for states. So far, your provide lots of word, but nothing of substance.
But you sure do TYPE a lot!
And BTW, where did you get the idea that “majority rules”? The CONSTITUTION rules, and the government operates within its confines. Well, it’s SUPPOSED to. Gosh, I suspect that’s what the Founding Fathers thought!
The U.S. is NOT a “majority rules” democracy — we were founded as a limited republic. It’s what the Constitution is all about.
So, is that an example of the justification for Libertarians that Prop 8 is invalid? Because it was majority rule, and not forced through the “representational/republic” construct as defined by the constitution? Interesting.
Again, Mr. Rider, I detailed (sorry its long, I’ll try to be more simple/brevetted for those that dislike reading) where Federal law, supported and adjudicated by Federal authorities tell us what we can and can’t do all the time…Federal crimes..I guess that didn’t resonate, or perhaps fit your construct that the government isn’t in the business, constitutionally, as to what we can or cannot do.
You didn’t answer my question? Do you pay taxes? That is a fairly simple example of what the government tells you that you must do.
I thought that was fairly clear..Apparently not.
“So, is that an example of the justification for Libertarians that Prop 8 is invalid? Because it was majority rule, and not forced through the “representational/republic” construct as defined by the constitution? Interesting.”
Now this is going to get good because this is where I heard similar stances between the candidates. Both Jorgensen and DeMaio told me that same sex marriage is an issue for the states (which is why the issue is a non-starter for me in this race–both understand their limited role as Congressmen).
I HATE the ballot initiative process because it relieves the electorate of the responsibility of elected proper representation BUT…Prop 8 was properly executed law under the California Constitution.
SCOTUS ruled correctly on standing but Brown and Harris intervened through intentional negligence and for that, both should be removed from office. How are you going to do that with a super minority though?
Discussions about California government can be a frustrating, circular argument. Would that we didn’t have the ballot initiative, I think Republicans would win more seats in the Legislature.
Stated simply, I don’t think the federal government can constitutionally define marriage….unless we pass an Amendment, of course.
— If HQ is reading, I really DO hate the ballot proposition process 😉
Brian,
I always read what you write. Ballot initiatives would be a great topic for another day but suffice it to say that this is another topic we agree on.
Mr. Rider,
Point of Order- WRT “The U.S. is NOT a “majority rules” democracy — we were founded as a limited republic. It’s what the Constitution is all about.”
Per our original discussion thread, I was refering to the majorities and minorities as they related to the Party membership, NOT in the context of “Democracies” versus “Republics”.