With his amazing failure to make the San Diego mayoral runoff, Nathan Fletcher is down. But not out. No way!
Fletcher has demonstrated his fealty to the Democrat Party — enough that they WILL find an office for him in a suitable district. Think not? Reread his STUNNING labor union questionnaire — seven pages of detailed questions with Nathan answering just about EVERY question “correctly.” Such groveling loyalty is highly valued by the labor union bosses.
http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2013/09/sd-mayoral-candidate-nathan-fletcher.html
There’s always a job opening for such a committed labor union sycophant. Fletcher is a fine package to present for races north of I-8 in liberal-leaning districts. Mark my words — he’ll be back.
In the meantime, Fletcher’s near term financial future is secure. Perhaps he’ll be assigned to some state commission that pays a six figure income for maybe 6 weeks work a year. Or maybe Qualcomm/Jacobs will continue to carry him on the payroll until he wins an office. Or maybe both!
BTW, I’m told that the Libertarian Party is taking defensive measures — publicly announcing in advance that, if he again shifts parties, he will not be welcome in the LP. But it’s just a rumor at this point.
Comments 49
DeMaio’s Congressional Seat in 2016.
Fletcher is done. I wonder if he gets the day off from Qualcomm, haha.
Author
Prediction, I suspect that will be his target. But in 2016 DeMaio will be the incumbent — harder to beat — and not seriously challenged in the primary. Fletcher will lose — AGAIN!
Fletcher likely needs to run for an open seat to get back on (or IN) the gravy train.
John Stahl — now that he lost, Fletcher will redouble his efforts for Qualcomm. But then, that’s easy to do.
Prediction- I think you meant “Jorgensen’s seat in 2016”
🙂
Actually, it will still be Peters’ seat so Fletcher will not run for it.
(No emoticon needed)
If Faulconer wins, Fletcher is viable for that city council seat?
Either that or run against DeMaio in 2016. I don’t see Jorgensen lasting long enough to make the Primary.
HQ,
We are in violent agreement…if it is Mr. DeMaio agaisnt Peters in 2014…
Amused,
Demaio has been campaigning as a career politician for 8 years…Jorgensen for 4 months. In that time, Jorgensen missed the blocking of the RPSDC endorsement by one vote…he is amassing more funding, more support and more exposure than when he was trying to kow-tow to the RPSDC leadership. He is in a better place now, than he was before DeMaio’s annointment. Conservatives know/like Jorgensen, and they will be the key to the Primary election.
If you think he won’t last that long, then you do not know Marines very well. 🙂
Richard,
John Stahl — now that he lost, Fletcher will redouble his efforts for Qualcomm. But then, that’s easy to do.
2 times zero is still zero
He didn’t miss it by one vote. There was a vote to not vote that went down 10 to 40. There was a vote to endorse and it was 34 for Carl Demaio, 14 for Kurt Jorgensen, 2 for Fred Simon.
For some reason I was still on his distro and he sent the email below today. Based on one line in there if he goes back in to politics it’ll be another flip-flop
—
From: Nathan Fletcher [mailto:NFletcher@nathanfletcher.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:50 PM
To: xxxxxx@xxx.com
Subject: Fortune favors the bold
Elliot,
Those are the words of Virgil and I believe they are true in life. However, they aren’t always true in political campaigns.
I am very proud of the ideas we advanced, the way we conducted our campaign and the vision we laid out for San Diego. I had an amazing team and committed group of supporters.
However, in the end it wasn’t enough. We ended up 1% point short of advancing to the run off.
I want to thank all of you who had faith in me and stood strong in a tough campaign. I will never forget you.
While this election marks the end of my time in politics, I leave with my head held high. I will always care deeply about our city, state, and country and look forward to finding new ways to make a positive difference.
I am proud of my time as a public servant for the people of San Diego. I know whether during my time in the State Assembly or more recently in the campaign for mayor, I gave it everything I had and am eternally grateful to all who helped me.
Semper Fi,
Nathan
Pot calling the kettle black. What a loser of an article written by one who knows best. You should qualify this column by explaining how you were trounced in five of the SIX campaigns you competed in. The only one you won was an uncontested primary for the libertarian party. Talk about a sycophant and a compulsive politician. You know, there is a reason people are leaving the Republcan party in droves and it is on full display in this blog. Dick, you could learn a thing or two about humility and grace from Nathan Fletcher. He showed more class in his concession press conference today than has been shown by the SD GOP this entire campaign. Shame on you DICK Rider!
Wow sounds like sour grapes there Steven. Does someone need a hug?
And the class you refer to is a product of humility that Fletcher must be feeling now that he has been rejected twice by the voters. He should now realizes that he is not God’s gift to the electorate.
The hate is swelling in you now.
Give in to your anger!
Use your aggressive feelings. Let the hate flow through you.
Gooooood….
Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, Richard Nixon, Carl DeMaio, Kevin Faulconer… What do they all have in common? Obviously not much, except for this: Each was also rejected by the voters at one time or another.
Interesting point to consider and I know this can’t be proven, but I do believe that most people would agree that in a general election,
Fletcher would have beat DeMaio
Fletcher would have beat Filner
Fletcher would have beat Faulconer
Fletcher would have beat Alvarez
Without the support of one of the two major political parties, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to advance to the general election.
I agree with Hypocrisy. And his point makes me question the decision to move forward with a Fletcher campaign (twice) without the support of a major party. But…vanity and arrogance cloud reality
And it makes me applaud both local parties for putting principle above just winning.
Excellent points about Fletcher.
Fletcher looks like he was following the Charlie Crist model
R to I to D.
Crist will probably have the backing of the Dem party in his current bid in Florida.
Nathan has not had the party backing in either of his last 2 escapades.
He is done, there is no constituency for his brand.
Richard Rider has lost a lot of elections. I would like Steven Gregory to point out how many times Rider has changed his views for the sake of political expediency.
Ya Know,
Thanks for the clarification…can you further elaborate? Was that before or after CD proclaimed Boehner would assure (give) moneyflow to the local party if Carl was endorsed?
Do “Ya know” if that was proposed in the closed-door endorsement discussions ?
Author
Thanks, Barry. But just because I’ve stuck to my philosophy for decades doesn’t mean I won’t still flip-flop to win an office.
Any day now . . . .
John Boehner? There was zero discussion about John Boehner. The Republican National Committee is putting resources into the race to help the locally endorsed candidate. The Central Committee decided on Carl Demaio. As others have asked of you, get involved with the party. There is no guarantee everything will go your way once you are involved, but you will be less frustrated when it does not because you will understand why and how.
Ya know, I don’t know.
Michael,
It wasn’t an indictment…it was a query. Just to clarify, there was “zero” discussion that you may have been made aware of…it does not mean there was zero discussion.
WADR, you make a false assertion; i.e. If one isn’t involved with the efforts of the RPSDC and the guidance of the CC wrt a particular candidate, then somehow one is not “involved.” I can assure you that could not be further from the truth. With 80,000 lost registered Republicans in SDC over the last several years, repeated lost elections and mediocre candidates with positions slipping and inching leftward, there actually could be a much greater bloc of “involved” volunteers working outside a party that no longer represents their positions…
This is an increasing political reality that, apparently not grasped by the RPSDC, is well captured in the latest American Spectator article. The question is, which tack does the Republican Party take?
http://spectator.org/articles/56649/dear-dr-krauthammer
Point of fact- Not frustrated…motivated!! 🙂
Mr. Rider has a flimsy premise. He assumes that three democratic elected officials want the same thing as democratic party leaders: a political future for Nathan Fletcher. At present, this remains to be seen and there is evidence against it. Although, Fletcher’s actions over the next few months may prove Mr. Rider correct.
Similar fissures that exist in the local Republican party also exist in the local Democratic party. Moderate republicans, including Kevin F., are distancing themselves in droves from the unholy embarrassment that is Tony K, knowing that Tony’s extreme tea-bagging ways spell eventual doom for the party in an increasingly blue San Diego.
Similarly, Democratic party leaders eschewed Lorena G., Juan V. and Scott P. by not buying into Nathan F’s self-professed progressive transformation. This is an extremely important fact considering that party leaders absolutely knew at the time they’d have far better odds with Nathan, not David A., as their nominee.
The republican rift is one between moderates and extremists. The democratic rift is an “Emperor’s New Clothes” divide: those who believed they smelled a charlatan and those who believed in the authenticity of Nathan’s switch.
Just because Fletcher’s answers on a labor questionnaire sound like they were written by Lorena G.’s office (and probably were), doesn’t mean the democratic party or mainstream democrats will embrace Nathan.
Also, count the number democrat-majority precincts that broke for Kevin F. A great many dems rejected the Fletcher veneer (if it indeed is a veneer) but didn’t know David well enough to vote for him and/or thought David was too green. It is the preservation of these votes that Kevin’s crew needs to worry about now. Kevin sure ain’t gonna flip South Bay.
Because of David’s lack of name ID in northern neighborhoods, one might argue that voters rejected Lorena, Juan, Scott and Jerry Brown last Tuesday, in lieu of Alvarez’s stronger and more stable surrogates: Toni A. and Donna Frye.
The next few months will mark the true test of Nathan’s alleged political identity as a democrat. How he behaves will be extraordinarily telling in terms of his loyalty toward the progressive agenda. If Nathan aggressively stumps for David (a good Marine doesn’t abandon his team, right?) perhaps democratic party leaders will be more convinced that his defection to the democrats is sincere and Mr. Rider could be right. Risky proposition.
SD Rostra could make some money taking online bets.
There are queries. There are indictments. Then there are indictments disguised as queries.
Someone “querying,” for instance, “Did anyone at the meeting ask (Candidate Smith) about the affair?,” could easily justify it later by saying, “I didn’t say he had an affair, I just wondered if anyone had asked him about one.”
In politics that is often referred to as whispering campaign, by starting a rumor through innuendo.
TA- Nice try…shoot the messenger… Fact-There is money coming from the NRCC to the campaign/party. Fact-John Boehner will (has) endorsed DeMaio, whether it is confirmed publically, or not. Fact-The RPSDC will benefit across the spectrum of their efforts as a function of the National flood gate opening for endorsing DeMaio (money going to DeMaio will offset other efforts..big win )..all of that is NOT inuendo..
The NRCC and other powerful establsihment efforts have and are thwarting conservative efforts against the establishment candidate…Does anyone believe those forces were courting either other candidate?
Didn’t ask about some innocuous affair..”is he still beating the kids??”…all knowledge starts with a question…the question is, is the RPSDC in a better place for having endorsed DeMaio than either Francis or Jorgensen?
Also, as a journalist, you have “sources”..do you not?
Are all “quereis” here met with the same rigor of analysis?..
Of course not. The proof is in the pudding, My Friend..
FF:
We said nothing about you. It wasn’t an indictment…it was a point about whispering campaigns.
Carry on.
Crusty,
False dichotomy… “Moderate vs. Extremist”…very Pelosi-esque of you…you forgot “Nazi, homophobe, intolerant NASCAR-watching rube”… How predictable.
When did conviction in a moral position become “extremist?” When did those dissenting against an increasing progressive-secular form of liberalism that at its core is antithetical to the foundational pillars of the American Exceptional experience become “extremist?” When is the choice not to follow the “moderate” lemmings off the leftist cliff considered “extremist?”
One example- Since Roe-v. Wade, an estimated 57 million children have been killed…and I’m the extremist? The atmosphere, and conditions to allow such a wholesale indictment on the present human condition is because liberal-secularists have taken the tactics from the playbook of the original extremists like National Socialism, and Marxist-Leninist Socialism that dehumanized their political, cultural, and social undesirables…reducing them to a number, or a category, or a “problem” to be solved…using terms analogous to “fetal mass” or “collection of cells” or choosing “reproductive freedom.”
If exterminating 6 million people, and displacing, starving, and executing scores of millions of others would be considered “extreme” violations by those regimes, do you not believe the nearly 60 million children “chosen” to be aborted is not extreme?
Call me an extremist…but I am not the one comfortable with that indefensible position.
Fair enough! Thanks for clarifying…and appreciated.
Wait, I thought Fletcher ONLY wanted to be mayor…nothing else.
FF, you asked if there was discussion. I simply answered your question and thought you were confusing the RNC with the NRCC.
If what you say is true, that is great news! Looks like the Central Committee endorsed the right guy if he is going to get all that support to beat Peters! NICE!
I look forward to watching Jorgensen take the time over the next 4 to 5 years to get as active as DeMaio had to be to earn that kind of national support.
Thanks for spreading the good news!
Michael,
Very cute…but sadly illustrates just how out of touch the RPSDC truly is….
The (inaccurate) assumption is because DeMaio “slogged it “out as a professional political insider for the last 8 years who’s recent accomplishment includes losing to Filner is why he is “getting the money”…He is getting the money because his “New Generation” neo-progressive position, and that of the RPSDC, abandoning the conservative positions tended by the party for over 60 years is more palatable to the NRCC and RNC establishment to a losing strategy of trying to out-flank the left by tacking to the left…
Only one little snag…IF true, then that would be in violation of a sh*t load of election laws…If a promise for money was offered, directly to the Party in exchange for the endorsement, then there would be a great deal of “splaining” to do… let’s hope it’s just “innuendo”…I mean, no one would be that blatantly obtuse to do something so reckless as that…would they?
So, by your logic, in the last several elections, Democrats have outraised Republicans…is that the strategy, follow the money, just abandon your convictions? Such pragmatism…
I never really know exactly what you are talking about. You kind of sound jilted.
The committee is really just a bunch of volunteers trying to do the right thing. All your blah-blah is just you frustrated with a decision and a lack of understanding (or refusal to try and understand) what political parties do. It’s easier to just call them boogey-men and not try.
But honestly…you should try. Come talk to me at the next meeting and we’ll figure out how to get you involved. I am very, very hard to miss.
Michael,
I…am…typing….this…slowly…for…your…edification…. :)
Seriously, I clearly understand political parties…I have been a registered Republican my entire life…I have donated (relatively) a lot of money to the Party…both local and federal…I have been a regional Co-Chairman to a political campaign…I have made calls, knocked on doors, handed out flyers, made speeches on behalf of candidates and positions…I love supporting my Party…
Here is exactly what I am talking about; The Republican Party is making a grave mistake trying to tack to the left in the attempt to appear more “tolerant” by abandoning core Republican platform positions…not just the obvious; Life and Marriage, but education, immigration among others…this has been exemplified by national losing propositions such as Bob Dole, McCain, Romney, GW Bush (NCLB)…regional ones such as Whitman, Fiorina, and the recent local one; DeMaio…lackluster at best, all ready to cast conservatives to the curb at worst… 2010 showed the most recent and most powerful emergence of Republican supporters since Reagan…because conservatives showed up…they showed up because the candidates shared their values and positions.
Tell me Micahel, since 2010, have you gained more registered Republicans or lost more? How is the plan coming along?
Case in point; Mr. DeMaio does not hold those values. Mr. Faulconer voted to ignore and de-legitimize the Prop 8 referendum as a City Councilman. He unilaterally decided to diametrically oppose tens of thousands of fellow Republican San Diegans because he didn’t like the results…
Michael, I am as “jilted (more accurate, concerned) as I am because I am watching my Party, that I have been aligned with for nearly 3 decades, with my parents, and their parents before me, as well, abandon its conviction all so it can “hang out” with the Cool Kids and feel catered to by a media that will never accept it, political adversaries that will continue to lie to it, and potential “independents” that can turn on a dime at the direction of a political wind.
The Republican Party once stood for conviction…even Democrats lauded the conviction of the Republican Party…our tenants were broadly accepted, easily understood, and deep-rooted in our ethos…sadly, that has been lost to crass political pragmatism, expediency, and political correctness…and now villified by the endorsed candiate as the Party of “old white men” that just need to “get with it.” ..playing right into the crafted narrative of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a number of other liberal-democrats…
Is that what we want from our Republican candidates?
Long line of comments but I just want to wish Nathan well in private life. I do not believe he was the right person at this time to be Mayor (go work for another 20 years and get some management experience) but the piling on seems…well…petty. He has a nice wife, 2 great boys and a long life to look forward to. Best wishes and god’s speed.
FF, yes, and there is a huge debate around if that drop is due to sticking to a strict platform or if it is due to trying to build a big tent.
Honestly, that’s above my pay grade.
If you want to help some candidates and have some influence locally, let me know.
Michael,
Fair enough…I appreciate the offer. That is kind of you.
I would just say…Fletcher tacked a great deal to the left..not only did he ruin his reputation by pandering, he also fell victim to wallowing in the same liberal marass as Alverez and the other guy (not sure what additional value he was now adding to the liberal agenda)…
I’m not convinced at all to the “widening the tent” theory…what some do not realize is their is a flap at the other end where those previously content with the platform now decide to leave (80K and counting) because they no longer recognize the positions, agenda, or platform.
I respect the fact that you are out there, involved, and engaged…I would like to think all that genuine thrust is aimed in the right vector.. 🙂 I simply do not believe the Republican Party, as I have known it and as it has been convicted over the years, is currently representing my positions, intent for the party, or vision for the future.
Let me weigh in on one thing.
A) Any moderation by specific Republican candidates is simply swamped by a national party which has – depending on your views either tacked right or – at best – stayed STILL while public opinion has shifted left. Most voters can not parse Carl’s specific views on Same Sex Marriage – instead hearing that in Oklahoma they have cut national guards benefits for everyone out of fear that they might be extended to a few same sex partners.
B) We MUST win in the suburbs. You can NOT be a rural party. So anytime you think you are going to play at being pundit start thinking about how you appeal to households in places like Walnut Creek, Concord, San Mateo, Palo Alto. We SHOULD be winning in those areas based on economic arguments since those households get CREAMED by a progressive income tax system and get almost nothing back. We lose them because they are socially liberal – which really means they want the STATE to stay out of their personal business. It really isn’t ANY more complicated than that. I don’t care if we win Barkesfield by 80% rather than 70%. It doesn’t matter. I want to – ONCE AGAIN – win Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo counties. I want to win communities like Carmel Valley, University City, Encinitas by enough of a margin to make liberals like Scott Peters and Dave Roberts cry.
As MY candidate says – being right is worth nothing unless you are WINNING.
Erik,
Thank you for the candid review.
However, are you “winning” if you are abrogating your conviction to do it?
I am originally from one of those areas who you accurately describe above…the reason why they think that (with RTL for example) is because they have been told the lie loud enough and long enough to where the false and contrived “war on woman” is not refuted powerfully enough or saliently enough. Instead, we decide we don’t want to appear “intolerant” or “obtuse” and we begin to make excuses and waffle about “reproductive rights” and “right to choose” etc…Those that can articulate a cogent argument for what that “choice” really is as much an advocate for the innocent as they are for “choice.” The choice is “life.” But Republicans have been shellacked by virulent and caustic advocates for “reproductive rights,” propped up by a sycophantic media, and funded (obliquely) by the government, and then feel as if they are on the defensive.
We don’t need to scoot toward or co-opt leftist positions…we need to articulate smarter!!
Founding Fossil… er, Founding Father:
Appropriate handle. Why? Because your views are antiquated as the spittoons used by members of the Continental Congress.
Right on cue, like the relic you are, you trot out the warmed-over abortion-is-murder argument, which is as popular among mainstream Republican women as Obamacare. Read: not at all.
To whom should you give thanks for upholding the framework of Row v. Wade, which you inelegantly compared to the holocaust? Why, none other than Sandra Day O’Connor! Appointed by your hero: RONALD REAGAN. In her revered 1996 Planned Parenthood. v. Casey opinion, she had the chance to back you up. She didn’t.
O’Connor was a pragmatic intellectual and she knew that the unintended consequences of banning access to first-term abortion would be far worse than regulating the procedure as a matter of public policy. Why? Because you can’t legislate morality. If you had your way, abortion would still exist, unscrupulous quasi-doctors would proliferate just as they did before 1973 and women (in addition to babies) would die. Women who miscarry would face the increased threat of manslaughter charges and women who seek out home remedies would either die or end up hospitalized.
You would do well to re-read the words of your fellow Reagan devotee, Sandy O. Whose policies are more murderous? Yours.
Good luck with your single-issue anti-abortion platform that a majority of your own party, including Kevin Faulconer, rejects. The recent gubernatorial election in Virginia should tell you something. Dirty Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe bets Tea Party-backed Cuccinelli. Extremism lost. Ideology lost. If Faulconer or DeMaio champion what you claim to be its “convictions” they’re going to lose too.
I wouldn’t bother with a response because there’s no way I’ll continue this discussion. I don’t trust anyone over 230.
“spark…spark…sizzle…spit”…yes, that’s the wire on ole’ Crusty’s shoulder…must be painful…strike a nerve much?
I never suggested “banning”…apparently “inelegant” enough to light your fuse..lol..
…and that’s your modern liberal-humanist…shut off debate..spit and run…well done, Crusty…well done!
57 million and counting…who’s the extremist? I’ll say a prayer…
Upper Crusty
It does not matter if the “abortion-is-murder” argument is warmed over or not. It does not matter that there is even an argument. The truth is the truth and it is truth that Abortion is murder. And no political party or politician should change its position on it because it is not “popular with women” or anybody else.
Oh and by the way. Ken Cuchinelli only lost to Terry McAuliffe because the Established Republican Party did not get in behind him and support him. (Because he was a Tea Party candidate and a threat to them?) They cut the $ support by 2/3rds, from $9M from the last Governors Election in Virginia to $3M in this one. Had the Republican Party thrown in full bore behind, he would have won. On more example of the Republican Party trying to keep the Establishment Wing in charge. There have been many.
Lee,
Yes, Lee, it appears there is a great deal of the “establishment” making a concerted effort to bifurcate themselves from the more traditional and conservative elements of the party. This was the same conservative element that brought such success to the Party in 2010. One would think they would have better cultivated that…they didn’t.
The American Spectator had a terrific article capturing this development.
http://spectator.org/articles/56649/dear-dr-krauthammer
If I were a liberal-progressive agent-provocator, and coupled that with a creative and insidious political agenda, I would devise a plan to infiltrate the remaining strongholds of the Republican Party with heavy-leaning hyper-progressive libertarians masked as “fiscal conservatives, yet social moderate.” I would start off very low key, gain the trust of my “fellow” Republican constituents and colleagues, wrap myself in the flag, tout Reagan-esque slogans and ideas, and make sure I bowed my head piously when the invocation was announced at sundry meetings in the name of Jesus Christ. Over time, I would begin to site why “social” conservatives, with “issue” platforms, were dragging the party down. I would eventually begin to craft a narrative where we would then over-emphasize what might be “issue” agreement platforms, fiscal responsibility, lower-taxes, reform, “fix congress first” and slowly begin to minimalize the other core platform issues we thought were “too divisive” or “too-harsh.” I would then cultivate backers, powerful media and financial supporters, to help implement and permeate this “New Generation” of Republicans, (The Lincoln Club, UT, among others) all the while dismissing and firewalling those within the apparatus, while on board with the other platforms of fiscal responsibility, strong defense, lower regulations, etc…also still held convictions that were the bedrock of the Republican Party they once supported, and admired. Then, I would ensure anyone that supports those increasingly “harsh, obtuse, and even extreme ideologies” these “one-issue losers”, shape an image of desperate “old white men, fossils” out of touch with the “New Generation” and the “progress” of the New Republican Party and then they themselves are singled out, identified, marginalized, and in some case outright intimidated, coerced, and labeled as “liabilities” for the New direction of the more tolerant, open-minded, inclusive, pragmatic, and socially-correct Republican Party.
I would sit back, and admire my work over the last 8 years or so as I will have infiltrated, divided, and now created a new faux-Republican Party more aligned with other hyper-libertarian and progressive agendas, thus cutting off and cauterizing the now universally accepted “extreme” wing that resides in places like Ramona, Vista, El Cajon, Eastlake, even faith-based (read “intolerant”) communities of Poway, Carmel Valley, Del Mar, and Mira Mesa. I would create the false notion that if we just “tack” a little more to the left, just give up this “one more” conviction, then the cool kids in the media, and late night television will like us…we can make them like us because we think, act, allow policies, and create political agendas that are more like them…
But that’s just folly, right?…I mean, that could never happen…
FF – thanks for link and post. But as military men lets talk strategy. 2010’s tea party sweep picked up 60 seats but only in areas that tilted right prior to the 2008 Obamapocalypse (recession induced Democrat sweep). Even more critical for us fighting behind blue lines in Californiaa, the tea party was resoundly rejected. Our anti-establishment and anger fuelled revolt doesn’t complete the mission here. I don’t question our principles but the frontal assaults of “govt should stop people from murdering babies” and “we should mine the border” is not gaining any turf in CA. It plays great in Alabama but hurts us here. We’ve brought it all the votes were going get with that rhetoric and it still isn’t a majority. New tone, new tactics are needed.
Elliot,
Well articulated…and fundamentally I agree…the rhetoric is key…but in the end, either you are for something or against it. All the “lawyer-esque” slick-basting (New Republican) marketing of the issues still boils down to a few key elements; either we are the party of the platforms we profess…or we are not.
The endorsement of Mr. DeMaio was a resounding refutation of some key tenants that millions of Republicans identify with deeply….of course, it isn’t the “only” issues, but they are salient to the identification of the party they once followed. I am not saying “lead” with them. And even with the concerted efforts by some to craft the narrative that I am, or others are, only about a single issue is invalid…Because it simply isn’t true…however, the wholesale repudiation and antithetical positions on key issues expressed by New Republican candidates like DeMaio and Faulconer is also NOT acceptable for thousands of SDC and 52 CD voters…
It appears that conundrum is clearly understood by the establishment, and they have made a choice, and are now willing to forgo the previous tenants in order to appear more “moderate” to appeal to a perceived wider base…I, and many others, believe that is not a viable strategy.
Many Republicans did not show up for Faulconer this time and many more did not show up for DeMaio in his last mayoral race. Logic concludes (everything remain equal), these same “many” will not show up for him in Nov, thus allowing Peters to stride into the end-zone. We may not like that, we may hear arguments that a “weak Republican is better than any Democrat” blah, blah…but like an airplane, without the rudder, or an aileron, it may still pass for looking like an airplane, but I assure you, it doesn’t fly like one!
I get it…the party wants to “appear” more socially moderate and forgo former convictions in order to appeal to the La Jolla soccer moms, the mobile DINKs, South-of-8-ters, and urban singles…got it…yet as these demos MIGHT consider DeMaio for taking such stances, thousands of others are rejecting those positions and have expressed that with increasing departures from the party, and deciding to “opt out” because the “endorsed” choices are simply not palatable.
“yet as these demos MIGHT consider DeMaio for taking such stances, thousands of others are rejecting those positions and have expressed that with increasing departures from the party, and deciding to “opt out” because the “endorsed” choices are simply not palatable.”
Two thoughts:
1- It’s the independents in CD52 who want a socially moderate congress member; not the Democrats. Democrats want an activist who seeks to endorse taxpayer funded abortions and a gay agenda of wiping out church weddings– that’s not DeMaio’s stance.
Those independents also don’t want to repeal Roe v Wade nor exclude gay people from getting a State-sanctioned marriage which neither Jorgensen nor Simon have said they want to do.
2- Republicans or DTS conservatives have four choices come June and have no reason to “opt-out” of the June election.
FF– you might interview all three candidates on their stances on abortion and gay marriage. Once you get beyond the “words on a website”.. you’ll find that the actions each would take, as Congressmen, don’t seem too far apart.
FF– you might actually question all three candidates on th
Brian,
As usual, you lay out a concise, salient and cogent depiction of your argument. It is appreciated..unlike for some, debate can be seen as advancing the wisdom and the intellect of all. Lord knows you and I haven’t agreed…accept to agree on remaining (relatively) civil, on point, and respectful. You get that, and I am a better person for you, and others, recognizing that…so..Thank you.
However, I believe it is much more nuanced and elusive than that. I am more concerned about one’s life perspective, their world-view, and what their conscience says when no one is watching…I know I am not alone in that. …one’s position on these formerly core issues of the Republican Party are such indicators. I can’t address what each candidate may or may not be able to address vis-à-vis these former core Republican issues in a legislative capacity, but as these controversial agendas proceed and the social, familial, and moral fabric is tethered and frayed more and more, one can address what each candidate may say or support for issues like homosexual sensitivity training in K-6 public schools, or unisexual-bathrooms for transgender students at the expense and confusion of gender-unambiguous young boys and girls, conceptual agendas about abortion, minimalizing the “life-choice” while touting the selfish lifeless option (i.e. “I wouldn’t want to have my daughter burdened with a baby??” in the infamous words of our President, Barack Obama. Can you imagine Reagan or even Kennedy saying something so irresponsible as that?) All in the subtle and nuanced setting and crafting the conditions, allowances, and policies for advancing or opposing these schemes. Brian…it is a battle… a battle of ideas, words, and concepts…who do you want in that battle, however so subtle or nuanced? There are those, in whatever capacity it may be, would (set conditions for the) advance the homosexual agenda in schools, perhaps at the federal level ( Common Core), where others may not…advance a muddled and softened “reproductive freedom” agenda, shaping the conditions for “abortion-first” policies disguised as the only pragmatic and real “choice” and in the case of ObamaCare, would, by philosophy, or by inaction, support the coercing of institutions that reject ObamaCare on principle for forcing contraceptive and abortion services against their inalienable right to discern. (in the latter, we can see our Catholic Bretheren under seige on this very issue)
If these issues were not so crucial, then I would surmise the “moderates” would not go to such lengths to minimalize, analyze, dissect, or confront them (by going to great lengths to reduce and brand them as “ineffectual” and insignificant; i.e The New Generation) Yes, there is the federal verses state and local impact and influence any of these candidates may or may not have…but, again, many convicted and principled people reduce the complex and overly charged and often rhetoric white-noise to this clear fact-what is in a man’s heart…what is at his “life-core”…how does he see himself in the world, or perceived and judged by his Maker? Does he believe in choices that promote my perspective, my worldview, and how I want my children thinking, feeling, and living? Or, is it a perspective that is antithetical and dissolute to how I view the world and how I want to interact in it?
For many, yes thousands of San Diegans, that choice is clear…at least through June…after that, depending on the outcome, their choice will have been made…and they will choose simply not to vote.
“However, I believe it is much more nuanced and elusive than that. I am more concerned about one’s life perspective, their world-view, and what their conscience says when no one is watching”
I think that is a valid concern for any candidate and you should ask whomever advances to the November election those hard questions. I”m pretty comfortable with all three of the Republican candidates experiences but I’ve had the luxury of spending time with all of them.