Guest Commentary
by Michael Schwartz
I like Kirk. I haven’t said a bad word about him and I am a big supporter of Carl DeMaio. I’ve only talked to Kirk three or four times and one of those conversations was just asking if the movie “Spies Like Us” was a realistic representation of CIA work. (He claims it is not.)
Still, I think the guy is exactly the type of person we want running for office. He has private sector and military experience, he is intelligent and well spoken, and he is doing a good job of running his campaign for his first time up to the plate.
I’ve heard nothing but good things about him from people who have spoken with him out in the community. And that feedback comes from people of all walks of life.
What has happened during his campaign and to his campaign could end up being tragic, but it depends on his reaction after the June election.
A bunch of homophobes have latched on to Kirk almost entirely based on the fact that he is not gay and it is danger-close to reflecting on Kirk. They are few, but they are loud and comically inept in pretending their motivation is anything but bigotry.
But what’s Kirk supposed to do? He’s running against an extremely effective, prepared, and great candidate. So Kirk has to accept support and money from people who do not reflect his motivations and ideals and he has to pretend they are normal folks with legitimate concerns.
So that this doesn’t turn into a tragedy, Kirk, my unsolicited advice:
1. The day after the June election graciously accept defeat and endorse Carl.
2. Donate time and money to Carl’s campaign. Not token, meaningless stuff. I mean real time and real money.
3. Take all that you have built while campaigning and point it at another office like school board or water board or something for the November election.
4. Don’t release some ridiculous statement about how the Republican Party is doomed blah blah blah with a list of excuses for not winning like “special interests” or being “out spent.”
5. Don’t disappear. Go have lunch with everyone you can think of and watch the support for your future roll in, even from those you now consider adversaries. Including me. I am happy to eat a sandwich with you and talk about supporting you in future political endeavors as long as you do all the other stuff on this list. If you don’t, I’ll still have a sandwich with you, but you buy.
6. Pay attention to the current rabid supporters who completely dismiss you by the time you’ve made it to #2 on this list — and know there will be 200 new supporters for every one that tells you that you are wrong to say anything nice about Carl … and every one you never hear from again.
Comments 61
In other words, do EXACTLY what Fred Simon is doing.
I’ve been around long enough to see many comings and goings of many local party leaders, self-important volunteers, donors who like to play politics, the hangers-on, and to cynically recognize local interest money to the point of predictability. And through all those years, some version of this “advice” has been given by some egotistical party loyalist to every non-nutjob candidate that wasn’t endorsed (see: Merrifield, Marshall; Lee, Mitz; Sanders, Jerry). This is not original.
My advice to Kirk is to examine his options versus his long-term goals, and consider the different outcomes for the many other people who have received this same advice (see: Merrifield, Marshall; Lee, Mitz; Sanders, Jerry; Fletcher, Nathan) before accepting Schwartz’s offer to kiss his ass.
I’m sure Kirk will conduct himself as honorably as he always has the day after the election. I can’t say he’ll take your advice, however. Personally, I hope not on a few of those. The sandwich sounds like a good deal, though!
Kirk is a real Republican, not a so-called “New Generation Republican. He is the only one in this race trying to restore the party to its conservative grassroots as opposed to making deals for endorsements and taking money from groups that do not support the core values of the Republican Party.
You should be supporting him by the way, Michael, since he is the only candidate who is solidly behind the Second Amendment and will never compromise away that right. How is someone who would deal with the President to come up with reasonable gun control “a great candidate” in your book?
D. Morton, it’s just a sandwich. I’d expect Ruth’s Chris if things are to progress to the level you suggest.
Karen, I am shocked you’d chime in on a post talking about bigoted homophobes who support Kirk.
Anyway, regarding Carl’s stance on the Second Amendment:
From his website – “Carl DeMaio supports the Second Amendment. The President and the Congress must act now to forge a consensus to improve enforcement for background checks and to keep weapons out of the hands of those with serious mental health issues and criminal history.”
If you notice, he is talking about fixing a background check system that is woefully ineffective. There is no way to do this without all three branches of government (which includes the president) agreeing. That’s this thing called checks and balances that’s kind of a part of how our government works. This stance mirrors the NRAs stance on background checks and what needs to be done to help stop criminals from getting guns. It is substance over platitudes.
“It is substance over platitudes.”
This really is the issue, isn’t it? Ask the three Republican candidates how they will legislate and one offers a garden hose of ideas, actionable ideas, ideas which limited government voters can grasp, understand, and support.
These things matter in a political campaign
Would you engage a man like Kirk Jorgensen or Carl DeMaio to run your household budget or being the CEO of your company, or being a care taker of your children? If you are seeking for a truthful report about a project, would you love to read all the facts of all the Good, Bad and the Ugly, or would you want to read only what is filled with meaningless sounding beautiful words which cover- up the Truth ~ No Substance? if that is what you want, Carl would be your man! We all look for substance with everything we do for country, family, friends and ourselves. None of us want to pick what looks pretty to the yes but there is No Substance! Only a $3.00 bill! Get the real Person, a real man /woman who dears to stand up and faces his/her opponent with nothing to hide! No FEAR! That person is KIrk Jorgensen! Carl has no Guts to face up to Kirk for a debate! Why? Because he has FEAR! Things to hide! It is only those who have Fear, or a guilty ridden conscience has no guts to face up to the challenge! Guilt is the Oppressor!
Michael…as discussed at our brief encounter…It warms my heart to see what appears to be sincere advise… how far we’ve come.. 🙂
Are we prepared to receive unsolicited advice as much as we are willing to send it?
I will pretend, perhaps foolishly, for one moment that the “bunch of homophobes have latched on to Kirk almost entirely based on the fact that he is not gay and it is danger-close to reflecting on Kirk” comment isn’t directed at me…the sticking point is that this underscores much of the frustration many conservatives both in and formerly of the GOP lament.
In the wise words of Dennis Prager “We need clarity over agreement.”
If there is to be any reconciliation between the conservatives and the more libertine influences on the GOP, there needs to be clarity on what constitutes each. I can tell you a way NOT to ingratiate the conservatives with the GOP is to continue to accuse, insinuate, or outright declare anyone that believes in the sanctity of life and marriage, two key tenets of the GOP for decades, is by default “a homophobe”. This bodes of a new encroachment of Cultural Stalinism that have manifested in socially and culturally un-American situations like Mozilla, the Property Brothers, or Chick-Filet. This reeks of the same malicious and ad hominem tactics used by progressives and liberals toward Republicans or anyone that opposed Barack Obama or other liberals in 2008, 2010, and 2012 and who were maligned and smeared as racist and bigoted (and echoed by the media, and even by faux-conservative pundits and commentators of late for those opposing the militant gay agenda beyond simple tolerance that now demand gay celebration and compliance). While there were no doubt those very few that may have been fueled by that, most on here that have had any interaction or familiarity with conservative groups, be them Tea Party, Libertarian, or Constitutionalists, they came in many flavors, colors, creeds and ideologies. This is true with conservatives; especially increasing numbers of local Republicans that have aligned themselves with Jorgensen’s campaign. I cannot speak to what forces or drivers may or may not compel one to support to Kirk. However, to continue to imply or outright accuse without merit those supporting him are “homophobic” is a loser tactic!!…And, I personally will do all in my power and influence to ensure NO conservative group supports the local GOP party as long as the same vile tactics are used against decent, faith-inspired supporters; Those same supporters that simply retain the same moral reference as Barack Obama, Bill Clinton did but a few years ago, and every other GOP (and many Dems) POTUS in history has exclaimed regarding the sanctity of marriage, and who many GOP-ers have declared regarding sanctity of life. This applies in November as well…including ensuring conservatives “take a knee” for any candidate or organization that uses or supports this approach to advance their campaign or endorsee. Again, would anyone who is fervent on the 2A or lower taxes and fiscal reform actually support a candidate endorsed by the GOP that was for either Gun Control or higher taxes? Would they not consider the same position if a candidate that espoused these positions was forced down their throat by the party apparatus?
Conversely, the conservatives must also support those positions that promote their morals and values vice tearing down those secular and libertine members that may not prescribe to their moral position. This is the crux of the conflict…and it doesn’t have a simple solution. Admittedly, that is very difficult, especially as flaming hammers are thrown at you when all you are doing is retaining the same GOP position you had, and the party promoted and declared as the platform, as close as last election cycle. (We are not talking about Prohibition, Blue laws)
So, for me, the litmus test for those proposing the “unsolicited advice” is as follows;
Is the GOP still the party for the sanctity of life and marriage? (While one needn’t believe that, is the GOP the haven for those that do?)
Is anyone who advances either of those former GOP tenets welcome in the GOP?
When conservatives oppose endorsees that do not reflect the platform or their tenets, are they to be vilified, marginalized, or cauterized in the name of “progress and pragmatism?”
As there are those that have proclaimed “homophobes” may be “danger-close” to the conservative campaign, the same is equally as applicable in the New Majority, et al, that appear to take great lengths to marginalize, vilify, and cauterize those who take a full-spectrum Republican (including life and marriage) very seriously.
I have never, ever, heard Kirk Jorgensen make a personalized slur or insinuation of perceived intolerance toward anyone…he is open and bold with his values and positions regarding his entire platform; that shouldn’t be why people call him or his supporters “intolerant or bigoted.”
As a last thought- I can attest to much of the angst I sense from the many groups with which I’ve interacted comes NOT from opposing DeMaio as much as those that were disgusted by the Party leadership and its oligarchic influencers that crafted the endorsement terrain by endorsing their “guy” months in advance, perceived “closed” meetings that preceded, the subsequent lockdown by powerful media conglomerates at the UT and KMFB, manifesting in Roger Hedgecock’s admitted blackout of Jorgensen, and the refusal to sponsor a debate or a forum where people could come to their own conclusions about the 52CD candidates. Those shady and smarmy aspects of this whole endeavor is what is at the core of much of the vehemence, anger, and frustration with the process and Party…not the bogey man of “homophobia.”
I gotta read all that to get the advice?
Just…tell me the advice when we go have a beer.
…lol…think of it like a guest post… 🙂
For our purposes, I’d focus on the last paragraph…
My unsolicited advice for Carl . . .
http://sdrostra.com/?p=38288
Michael, you simply stated that some homophobes have latched on to Kirk because they were not supporting Carl. That remark troubles me a lot. I am not voting for Carl. I am definitely not homophobic. I know you are not implying that myself or any voters who do not support Carl are discriminating against him but the statement is definitely not pleasant.
Yes, there are people out there that morally and/or religiously do not choose to support the LGBT lifestyle, and yes, many of these people are Republicans. We cannot call people bigots or prejudiced for not supporting an openly gay candidate. This country has freedom of religion but I fear that we are moving into a grim area when politicians and/or politically motivated individuals name other individuals as discriminatory especially when that individual’s core religious values are under attack. I am just saying this feels so wrong…ON BOTH SIDES!
I do not have a solution but I do hope we can find an amicable solution within our party. Republicans fighting Republicans is getting old. As a conservative voter I am voting for someone I respect. I hope that other voters, be it conservative, liberal or independent, also vote for someone they respect.
Please leave the name calling and labeling out of this. I respect you tremendously Michael A. Schwartz. Let’s work on uniting our party not breaking it apart from the inside, out.
I think Kirk deserves an apology. There are radicals and crazies out there. They were out in force during the recall of Filner…on both sides. When someone is passionate about an issue they can many times overlook their own mistakes. We are playing politics. It is just a game but peoples lives and reputations are at stake. I do not feel that Kirk deserves the bigot by association label. It is not being worn by him personally. He deserves better. We all do.
As a side note, when Filner was elected it was due in part to the Republican vote. This should be no surprise to you.
“I think Kirk deserves an apology.”
Why?
Elisa, my article is very specific in scope and is talking about a very specific group of people. You are applying it to something much broader.
For months I’ve seen emails, post, articles, and comments by Kirk supporters that were derogatory towards Carl specifically because he’s gay. Kirk wasn’t a part of any of that and on a couple of occasions made the volunteer issue a statement that Kirk didn’t support their actions. (But still showed up for the fundraising event the nasty email advertised.)
No, not everyone who chooses to support Kirk over Carl is a bigot. But a number of bigots back Kirk over Carl. It is those bigots that I’m referring to in this article.
Brian Brady, Michael should apologize because he has inappropriately called some of Kirk’s supporters bigots and worse, and by extension, implied that Kirk should either disassociate himself from those supporters or accept the same labels. That is a tactic right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Frankly, the bigger apology should go to all of us here who find it insulting that he thinks he can get away with that, as though we’re not all smart enough to see through it. It was a childish attempt and it failed, big time.
Ditto Brian. Kirk deserves an apology for what?
Thor’s Assistant: see my answer above your repeat of Brian’s question.
Nobody here owes Kirk Jorgensen an apology and he doesn’t owe one to anyone here.
Most of his online supporters don’t even know his positions (as is evidenced by some of the statements here). Here are some facts:
1- Kirk Jorgensen is not a homophobe. He and Carl have identical positions about the federal government’s role in marriage.
2- Kirk Jorgensen is pro-Life but he doesn’t see it politically practical to overturn Roe v Wade.
3- Kirk Jorgensen thinks the war on drugs is futile but doesn’t favor blanket legalization.
This is what the man told me seven months ago and I was thrilled with his responses. Karen, do you think he lied to me or do you think you don’t fully understand his positions?
I don’t judge Kirk Jorgensen by his online supporters because I’ve met some of his supporters (in real life). I haven’t heard one of them misrepresent his positions nor say the things his online supporters have about DeMaio. They argue Kirk’s merits and try to point out his expertise in national security.
At the end of the day, Michael’s criticism was aimed at his online supporters and his advice is good if Kirk wants a future in elected politics in San Diego. Frankly, I don’t think he does (and I don’t blame him).
Michael, although you NOW state that it is only a specific group of supporters you were referring to, it’s too late. You can’t unring that bell. It is also only NOW that you say that Kirk has already taken care to make certain that his supporters understand that he doesn’t share that attitude. However, I’ll assume you meant your comment above as a form of apology to Kirk and to the vast majority of his supporters.
Again, many see through the ad hominem attacks and faux-outrage perpetrated by many on here toward those that do not prescribe to Carl “The Candidate”..it has been exposed for what it has been all along..an attempt to “victimize” Carl and to demonize any opposition with charges of “bigotry” and “hate.”
Sadly, it not only has failed, but many of those previously ambivalent about the 52CD race are now awaking to the reality of the New Generation and what kind of GOP the party is becoming…and they clearly do not like what they see. Where’s the proof, it isn’t in dinners and funding trips to out-of-state donors…its the phenomenal grassroots effort by those believing they can take their party back…and it’s powerful.
I applaude Michael for his magnanimous gesture of civility and cooperation (Lord knows it isn’t easy..having drawn my sword on more than one occasion myself) …I and I sincerely wish we were closer to that…but again, it isn’t Carl driving the thrust against the Party (for me, it was never the crux..it was about who supported, how they manipulated, and why good people allowed it..) ..its about the Party..and as long as they continue to display these reprehensible aspects of perceived cronyism, double standards, and excessive elitist influence, good people, like Jorgensen, are sought after by good people of conviction.
To be clear, this is the kind of stuff which isn’t helpful:
http://www.nomblog.com/38946/
…and yet, I don’t tie Jorgensen to the kind of demagoguery Brian Brown is using in the linked piece. Brown’s fundraising page for Jorgensen is a a lie of omission, completely ignorant of Jorgensen’s legislative positions.
That’s a problem but not one which demands an apology from anyone here.
Brian, I noticed that rather than letting Kirk and Carl speak for themselves on the issues, which would be nice if Carl would EVER have the courage to debate Kirk, you have tried to summarize their views and imply that they are similar. That couldn’t be further from the truth. But instead of MY trying to tell you what their stands are, I’ll let Kirk speak for himself, since you’ve pretty much given us Carl’s.
Kirk’s stand on the major issues you can find by clicking on the ISSUES tab of his Home page:
http://www.kirkjorgensenforcongress.com/
Kirk has also released a series of brief videos where he talks about the issues. They’re all on YouTube. But here’s the one on how to fix immigration presenting what I think is a common sense approach..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRgNeizKU5s
Karen,
You are not reading what I write either.
On another thread, I mentioned that I spent over eight hours with Kirk and his team, in person and on the phone, asking him specific questions about how he would legislate. I spent similar time with Carl, asking him the very same questions.
Their answers, about how they would legislate, were similar. Do you think Kirk lied to me? I don’t.
When we get get caught up in the heat of the moment supporting our candidate for the primary, it’s too easy to forget about our REAL enemies. The real enemies are the Democrats like Scott Peters who bankrupted the city with his corrupt pension give-away, his support of high taxation, and heavy-handed govt control. Have a healthy exchange of ideas but after the primary, put aside your differences, and support and vote for the Republican candidate for the November election. Too often, Republicans get ticked off, sit home and don’t vote, or even worse, leave the Party and register DTS. We need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot. You NEVER see the Democrats do this and as a result, they win a lot of elections in California. Bottom line, if you don’t want Scott Peters, vote Republican in November. Any of our 3 Republican candidates will be light-years better than Scott Peters.
What Dan said.
Dan,
While I really do admire the passion and rally cry, it’s a bit more complicated than that. We’re not talking about pluses or minus over some percentage points in a proposed tax reduction, or peripheral differences in what constitutes a “strong military” or whether border security includes troops versus more technical means, or if a 20 round clip is less supportive of the 2A vice a 30 round clip, or approaches in implementation of school vouchers……
The Republican Party of San Diego, ostensibly on the direction from the RNC and NRCC, has made a wholesale shift in the platform of the Republican Party that simply cannot be adhered to by voters who are guided by their faith and conscience. It goes beyond the simple “on-the-margins” discrepancies between likeminded GOP candidates and ideologues.
You claim “any of the GOP candidates will be light-years better than Scott Peters.” Yet, both Scott Peters and Carl DeMaio possess the same stated views on the sanctity of life and marriage. For those that do not care about that, they have no dilemma. For those that do, then to vote for Carl DeMaio in November is to advance an ideology that promotes diametrically opposed positions to their convictions and morals. To not vote for Carl at least does not sanction or somehow condone what the Republican Party has advance; it is a vote to tell the Party…”you made the wrong endorsement, and the Party members will not support this type of platform revision in the future”.
It’s called conviction.
Without it, we become de facto Democrats. (Win at any cost…lie, connive, advance hypocrisy, political expediency, pander, all in the name of “unity.” .
The Leadership should have thought about this long and hard before they decided the endorsement that this would eventually be the conundrum they would face. Sadly, the “suicide mission” culminating in November was decided long before the endorsement or the vast and growing opposition to it as manifested in Jorgensen’s expanding and increasingly appealling campaign.
FF: I agree with many of the things you say on an on-going basis. However, I must disagree on the issue of not voting for Carl if he is the Republican nominee, or any Republican candidate with whom I disagree because of 2 instances. One is that 3 million Republicans didn’t vote for Romney because he was moderate on many issues and they didn’t like his Bain Capital background and actions. This resulted in a second term of Obama, the biggest threat to American liberty in the history of the United States. The second instance is by people not voting for Carl for Mayor, we got that disaster named Filner, who was hard at work wrecking all our hard-won fiscal reforms before he was forced to resign. Conviction always needs to be tempered with the reality of a situation. I don’t believe in pandering, and putting political expediency ahead of values, and conviction for unity. But after showing conviction in the primaries by supporting our candidate, it is now time and it is critical that we have unity for the November elections.
Fair enough, Dan..but again, I can’t relate to the “Bain Capital” type-reasons..some are comfortable having voted for Romney where the Libs always pointed out he was “pro-abortion”..of course, that was misrepresented.
My contention is with the genesis of the issue. Keeping my personal reservations about Demaio aside…is that the best we can offer? Pols like Carl have sooo much baggage..it doesn’t take an NSA “scrub” team to see all the challenges across the spectrum he has had ranging from integrity issues, his time as a contractor, the ridiculous sign video, even the mayor of San Diego is saying he’s full of “bullshit.” …in all candor, is he the best we can offer? I am aware enough politically that there will always be some “quid pro quo” and that Carl will carry the water for the Papa Dougs and Salsbury’s of the world..but Lord, it gets so frustrating to hold the nose with nearly each candidate that come down the line…Neel Kashkari?? WTH??
Again, I hear what you are advocating, and it gives one a moment of pause..but a wise man said to me years ago…”If you allow it, then you deserve it..” I don’t think the GOP voters or the residents of the 52nd deserve any more “hold your nose” endorsees .
Dan,
“The real enemies are the Democrats like Scott Peters who bankrupted the city with his corrupt pension give-away”
Are you a supporter of Brian Maeinschein?
Brian,
You keep saying how you know where Kirk Jorgensen stands on the issues and what he would, and wouldn’t do, as a Congressman because you talked to him personally. Knowing that Jorgensen was in Intelligence in the Marines, don’t you think it is possible that he could have simply been (convincingly) telling you what you wanted to hear?
“A bunch of homophobes have latched on to Kirk almost entirely based on the fact that he is not gay and it is danger-close to reflecting on Kirk. They are few, but they are loud and comically inept in pretending their motivation is anything but bigotry.”
Michael, are you purporting to be all-knowing, kind of like God? If so, which is it “a bunch” or “a few” “homophobes”? There IS a difference. Must be awesome to be able to “know” the truth about what people are REALLY thinking. They couldn’t possibly like Kirk for who he is and not for what he isn’t.
“But what’s Kirk supposed to do? He’s running against an extremely effective, prepared, and great candidate. So Kirk has to accept support and money from people who do not reflect his motivations and ideals and he has to pretend they are normal folks with legitimate concerns.” Yes, Carl’s had a lot of experience running for offices so he should be prepared which begs the question if he couldn’t beat someone like Filner, how in the world can he possibly beat Scott Peters??
Would you like to know why I will never support Carl? He lied to 4 of my friends about where he stood on Prop 8 and life issues when he ran for mayor. Would you like to know why I am supporting Kirk? Because he is a man of character, trustworthy, honest and loves this country so much he was willing to die for it as a U.S. Marine! Also, He is NOT a career politician having signed a term limit pledge.
If Carl is everything you think he is, why is he so afraid to debate Kirk? Why won’t he be in the same building at the same time with Kirk? Please use your mental powers and read Carl’s mind and let us know why since he won’t reveal the truth.
Hypocrisy, that worries me. As does the idea of a former CIA in office.
That part of his resume has come up in many discussions.
But…the way he has conducted himself during the campaign gives me faith in his word. Still…never trust the elected.
No HQ, I do not think Jorgensen lied to me. I disagree with his foreign policy positions but I see him (as I see DeMaio and Simon) as men of integrity..
“Hypocrisy, that worries me. As does the idea of a former CIA in office.”
Just wow!
I guess if our knowledge of the Intelligence community comes from watching Bourne Movies, then I guess we might have a skewed and ignorant view of what human intelligence operatives do in the defense of their country in the dark, hostile and distant places of the world…
In the midst of the VA scandal, we see the outrage and rightful indignation of people like Hedgecock saying “How can we let this kind of treatment stand of our Vets…its reprehensible..”..Yet, this sanctimonious fake has his own blacklist not allowing a Vet to even come on his show…What an ungrateful turd! Then I see truly ignorant statements insinuating some distrust and sinister aspect toward Jorgensen who has displayed a level of integrity and sacrifice most here have no concept of…none!
If this is truly the pervasive mentality of the GOP insiders…then our party is already lost.
Larry Wilske…are you watching?
For the uninitiated! This is why those that have family or friends in the military have justification for when Vets get blacklisted..at the VA or in Roger Hedgecock’s studios..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xIMKWFH-8dU
Joan, then you wouldn’t be one of the bunch I am talking about, would you?
FF, what’s a “Bourne movie”?
I’m not fond of our over interventionist foreign policy or an isolationist policy. It’d seem silly to support a former CIA guy with that view.
Oh, and I was worried he was telling me what he thought I wanted to hear, but was better at it than most elected due to his CIA resume.
The Bourne Series…Author Robert Ludlum..starring Matt Damon..ringing any bells? Not to worry…CIA trained officers are not spies and liars..they are trained to get foreigners to our spies and liars.
Michael…you are aware that isolationist and interventionist foreign policies are mutually exclusive? Which do you think Kirk adheres to?
And I have to agree with others here that thinking the worst about a man simply because he’s served in the Intelligence community doesn’t display much wisdom.
FF, ah. Ok, not a big movie guy or Matt Damon fan but I get what you’re talking about.
Matthew,
I don’t know the point you are making by saying that an isolationist foreign policy and interventionist foreign policy are mutually exclusive.
Kirk’s foreign policy, as he explained to me is a bit more interventionist than I prefer. In general. But very thoughtful.
Can you explain to me what I assumed about Kirk for having a career in intelligence? More importantly…how its “the worst”?
HQ asks Dan if he is a supporter of Assemblyman Brian Maeinschein — given Maeinschein’s demonstrated fiscal incompetence and pension fund culpability. HQ didn’t ASK me (I’m not in the thread), but let me answer.
No.
I’ve opposed Brian Maienschein’s move to the legislature. I have thought him to be a poor GOP choice. I’m still not convinced he’s the best choice.
But since being in the Assembly, he has been a significantly better fiscal conservative than he was as city councilman (a low hurdle, to be sure). I’ve not followed his voting in great detail, but it seems that, absent labor union pressure (ain’t gerrymandered districts great!), he’s been doing mostly the right thing for a GOP legislature.
On the other hand, Scott Peters has slavishly supported every Democrat spending measure and expansion of government — no different than when he was a city councilman. He’s your typical spendthrift Democrat. I guess I have to admire his consistency.
Actually, no — I don’t.
Exactly what Richard said. I was not sold on Brian Maeinschein because of the pension mess. A good friend of mine who is in the political know said Brian realized his mistake on the pensions, regretted it, and apologized. From the little I have seen about Brian, I think this is accurate and he has turned it around. Good for Brian. We all make mistakes and I admire someone who admits his mistake and makes amends. So yes, I support Brian now. Will HQ admit his mistake in voting for and supporting Filner for 30 years ?
Dan,
Apologize for supporting Filner for 30 years? Not likely! In fact, his 100% unjustifiable anti-social behavior notwithstanding, Filner likely has done more good for this country during his life than anyone who frequents this blog has done. I am proud to have supported him during his time as a Congressman.
As for the Mayor’s race, Filner was actually my third choice in the primary but I did vote for him in the General Election and to this day, I firmly believe the City would have been worse off had he lost.
HQ: Interesting. Please give me the details on what good Filner has done for America? Voting for Obamacare? Supporting the Fast and Furious gun running to the Mexican cartels? Also, what are the reasons you believe San Diego would have been worse off? Was it because Carl would have put our city on a strong financial footing and paved roads in the barrio and ghetto and brought jobs and opportunity to low income citizens like Kevin is doing?
Dan,
Google “Bob Filner Freedom Rider” for a start.
Then give me a list of all “the paved roads” that Kevin has brought to “the barrio and ghetto.” I actually hope you can produce such a list since I have yet to see any roads paved in my neighborhood. I hope he is paving roads somewhere.
Ok, After reading all of the above I believe I’ve got my first dose of PTSD!
Here’s the scoop Team… In the race for the 52nd Carl, Fred, or Kirk are better than Peters on all levels. Who ever lands on their feet at the top of this heap is who we ALL need to get behind Unless… Unless we have a GOP 1 / 2 finish! Let’s quit focusing on our collective differences and get our arms around the common ground we want represented in Congress that Peters is not representing. Our country is a mixed rabble of differences and those very differences make up our #1 strength.
This Memorial Day take the time to realize the very differences (in our own party I might add) we argue and condemn one another on are differences paid for in full by the life of one of my Team mates and your brothers and sisters in arms. In my brief political experience I’ve see the absolute ugly in the GOP mirror and still believe our Party (once unified) holds the keys to a positive future for America. Let’s honor that first and foremost and leave the enemies marker on the door of the Democrat Leadership that needs replacement instead of attacking each other.
To honor those that have given much more than anyone of us in this string let’s do so by committing to cease and desist the childish bickering that has given way to our Party being the loosing team. I would gladly give my life for any one of you, if I agreed with you or not. Leadership demands we embrace the Ethos that dictates “Acceptance does not mean Agreement”! God Bless each one of you and God bless America!
Hypocrisy: I admire Bob for helping Martin Luther King, a Republican. But then again, he probably only did it out of guilt to atone for his fellow Democrats founding and strong support of the KKK. As far as roads go, as soon as Kevin was elected, road paving dramatically increased all over San Diego. I see it everywhere I ride my bike. Look around my leftist friend. So we get back to, what did Bob do other than grope and fondle women everywhere in reach. It gets back to his support of Obamacare, Fast and Furious, and the gestapo IRS bullying of the Tea Party. Thanks Bob for working hard to destroy America.
Dan,
“I admire Bob for helping Martin Luther King, a Republican. But then again, he probably only did it out of guilt to atone for his fellow Democrats founding and strong support of the KKK.”
Wow! Did you ever stop to think that, among other things, it is angry, rank partisanship that is destroying America?
No, I think it’s corrupt crony capitalism that’s destroying America. Plus a healthy dose of socialist attacks on free enterprise and productive citizens.
Angry, rank partisanship? Way down the list of problems.
W.C.,
I give you credit for naming one problem that is usually blamed on the right and one that is blamed on the left, but don’t you believe that it is fundamentally impossible to work together as a country when half of the population is assumed to be always wrong because they don’t belong to your political party?
Joan Pernicano — You say “if he [Carl DeMaio] couldn’t beat someone like Filner [in the 2012 November Presidential election], how in the world can he possibly beat Scott Peters??”
If Obama were running for reelection in November, Peters would win — thanks to the large turnout of clueless voters. Obama’s not, and Peters won’t — at least he won’t if DeMaio is his November opponent.
And indeed, in the DeMaio-Filner mayoral election — when looking at the votes in Peters’ congressional district — DeMaio trounced Filner 58%-42%.
Richard,
The only thing worse than a clueless voter is a voter who thinks that he has a clue just because he votes in every election.
The BIG assumption is the SAME people that were inclined to vote for DeMaio in 2012 will be the SAME people inclined to vote for him in 2014…and for the same reasons, and for a very different office. ..big assumption. Carl’s reneging on not pushing his personal lifestyle agenda, the plagiarism debacle, the negative press stemming from the City Council rumors all make Carl a different candidate and the district is a different constituency.
Also, if CD does NOT win, then why the assumption KJ would be any less competitive? The fallacy is all these “indies” would only vote for DeMaio or Peters…lest we forget, 80K have left the GOP in SDC over the last several years..simple regression analysis would conclude many of those would be to the right of CD..inclined to vote for KJ…we can see that in the expansion and ubiquity of specific conservative groups…any attended a “Ramona Indies” or any “Independent Federated” lately?
That wager is looking better and better….
“…the assumption KJ would be any less competitive?”
The assumption that Kirk is less competitive is based on the fact that he is polling below 5% in the district and Kirk hasn’t convinced enough people to give him enough money to be competitive. That below 5% may not be exact as of today, but it was accurate when I was told not too long ago so I am sure it is still under 10%. It was also conducted by a reputable firm who used scientific methods.
The reason has nothing to do with Kirk’s character or stance on any issues. It has to do with being a complete unknown until he decided to run for congress on his first swing at public office. This is why the advice to run for something after the June election is important. Serving on something gives him a track record and time to build more relationships just like his campaign for congress has given him a track record and time to build relationships that will help him be successful when running for whatever he runs for after the June election.
It’s fun to have a big boogeyman enemy (like the eeeeeevil Republican establishment…ooooooooo!), but the reality is far more nuts-and-bolts.
A great example to follow would be Assemblyman Brian Jones. He ran for Santee City Council and won against an incumbent. He called on those same volunteers when he ran for congress against Duncan Hunter who had a ton of name ID because he has the exact same name as the well-liked congressman who had already been there for a couple of decades.
Brian lost.
Did he whine and cry or turn his back on everyone? Nope. He took his relationships and track record and ran for the Assembly. And won against formidable opponents. He has also been a supporter of the local Republican Party while never compromising his principles.
The advice I gave in this article comes from paying attention to honorable, professionals like Assemblyman Brian Jones.
“The reason has nothing to do with Kirk’s character or stance on any issues. It has to do with being a complete unknown until he decided to run for congress on his first swing at public office. ”
Yes, when the endorsement for the 52CD was moved up 7 months Where ALL other endorsement took place in April 2014…), a black out by local media (With faux conservative Roger Hedgecock at the helm..), headed by the same folks in the room at the La Jolla Confab (Power elite like the owner of the UT, and his relations with KFMB..Chamber of Commerce CEO and former SD Mayor Sanders, Sudsbury, TK..and the other “boogeymen..”) where CD was essentially anointed, then yes, numbers, money and “support” can be problematic..especially when the “bogey man” establishment does things very boogeyman-ish…
Ostensively why they did precisely that…shrewd perhaps..but not ingratiating themselves to any new conservatives. This will be remembered in November…and very few conservatives will show up when they have been shown the door by the GOP in San Diego.
As the old Zen Master said…”We shall see…”
Michael:
Absolutely!, on the last comment. Brian is a great example.
There’s a big difference between stating political reality that a particular candidate can’t win a race, and such a statement being an attack on that person.
FF, Do you realize that you are attempting to blame just about everything but anthropogenic global warming on the RPSDC Central Committee?
Let’s isolate the one things Committee members CAN control–the endorsement. The rest of your woes have nothing to do with the RPSDC Committee so take some personal responsibility for those.
The Committee endorsed Carl early. It planned to endorse a few months earlier but a stranger, whom nobody had heard of, showed up and asked us to deliberate, This stranger was worthy enough of consideration but unaware of the fact that the Committee planned to win this seat back in November of 2012– he had an uphill battle with the Committee from the beginning because nobody knew him.
Frankly, few of his supporters knew who he was at the point either.
He’s no longer a stranger to me; he’s a damned good man. I stood alongside of him, to stand up for a Marine last night.
When I chose to vote to endorse DeMaio, I advised your candidate to run for Congress instead of the RPSDC endorsement and he took that advice. Good on him.
You might do the same. Neither I, nor Michael Schwartz, nor Tony Krvaric, nor Roger Hedgecock, nor Doug Manchester, nor Tom Sudberry, nor TJ Zane, nor Barack Obama are the source of your woes. We’re executing a plan to elect our candidate.
Stop complaining and start campaigning. Your candidate took that advice months ago and it has made all the difference.
Hyperbole can go both ways, Brian.
Endorsements have consequences. My campaigning happens to be for the other guy.
I wish I could blame the CC more….but is all candor; I believe the CC is not adroit enough to be the sole culprit.
The GOP is increasingly and rightfully concerned as to the push back both locally and nationally the establishment is getting from the concerted and obvious decision made to fold the conservative side of the tent. Starting with the New Majority, Reagan Club, New Generation, coupled with the deliberate and concerted efforts made on local political power brokers in SDC, including the media cabal, it is blatantly obvious the conservatives, from the GOP visionaries’ stand point, are “the problem”. All the euphemistic rhetoric from the New Generation and the influence more secular libertine forces have played is clearly evident in the “victim” saga playing out by the DeMaio campaign and …wait for it ….ENDORSED…by the RPSDC.
But are all RPSDC critics the same?
Kim Tran, MaryRose & Tom Sherman, Mary Moran…and countless others; all true avid, faithful Republicans. Campaigners extraordinaire…all disillusioned with the local party apparatus…are they all “complainers” and hyperbolic as well?
Perhaps it’s a more pervasive and systemic problem.
80K and rising…not sure the answer is to alienate, ridicule, demonize, and isolate conservatives….not all are “bogeymen” of “old white males,” to quote Mr. DeMaio They too are not to blame for anthropogenic global warming, Tea Party or the ills of the GOP.
Endorsements have consequences…this one sure did…and its affects, especially regarding the abandonment of Life and Marriage Sanctity by the Party leadership, may be irrevocable.
I’m not ridiculing you FF, I”m giving you some advice. Campaign for the 52 CD win.
I don’t always get my way in Committee (check that–I rarely get my way) but I’m not interested in burning down the house because I didn’t. To wit, that former-but-“real” Republican:
http://republicanwomenallianceblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/your-political-experiences-are-not-my-experiences/
Brian, no ridiculing taken. Its not the 52CD I worry about so much. We as conservatives can regroup and reattack next election cycle in 2016 depending how the primary goes if need be. (but in all candor, we are very excited as to the results come Tuesday evening…)
The larger issue is the perceived nepotism, insider-baseball, crony tactics and apparent concerted effort by the GOP writ large, and the RPSDC in particular, has decided to forgo its conservative principles for the more desirable and politically expedient approach of embracing the “victim” status of a DeMaio-type for potential sympathy from the “indies.” (BTW, a hardy golf clap to the DeMaio campaign who is milking this “break in” for all the sympathy they can muster…”it isn’t about me, Megyn, its about the issues”…blah, blah…) Couple that with stark hypocrisy in the form of the sham endorsement process double standards, claims of “needed experience” (funny, no one seems to charge Wilske, who was endorsed by the RPSDC, with the same claim of “inexpereince” that is often leveled at Jorgensen), and the marginalizing the once fundamental and core tenets of Life and Sanctity of Marriage all conclude the GOP may no longer be the place conservtives should call home. I have never, ever voted for anyone other than a Republican since my first vote for Reagan in 1980. Sadly, given the blatant shift in idealogy by the Rove-led GOP, I, and thousands of others, are forced to reconsider that.
As discussed previously, for many, the “compromise” is a choice they simply cannot nor will not make given their convictions and moral positions. All being equal, would you personally vote for a candidate that possessed the same positions as your endorsee, but instead he was for gun control? How about amnesty, or higher tax rates?
Of course you wouldn’t. Yet, many in the GOP now want those very voters who they have told loud and clear that their deeply held positions on key tenets do not matter, and who have seen a strong and viable candidate, vet, family man, and devout man of faith be treated with disdain and irreverence all because he dared challenge the party process of fait accompli pre-ordainment.
Again, my friend…endorsements have consequences.
“The larger issue is the perceived nepotism, insider-baseball, crony tactics and apparent concerted effort by the GOP writ large…”
I sincerely hope we discuss this in person, after Tuesday.
I am certainly amenable to that.