The American Federation of Teachers is tracking the mayor’s race. Weekend numbers, according to the OB Rag, show David Alvarez continuing his upward trend and Nathan Fletcher fading…
http://obrag.org/?p=78016&co=f000000009816s-1158206718
OB Rag: Alvarez now polling ahead of Fletcher
Comments 23
Could Fletcher’s polling numbers dropping have anything to do with his recent very nasty negative ads against Alvarez? Wow, Nathan, that didn’t take long to break your promise of no negative ads.
Incredible.
Red,
I believe keeping a promise like that is contingent on your opponents doing the same. After seeing their candidate being hit with a seemingly never-ending string of negative ads for weeks, Fletcher’s supporters should be commended for holding out as long as they did before attacking back.
No and No…Alvarez has La Raza. In English the young man has Charisma and Faith. Red you should go to a mass sometime.
In local politics the english translation is …Grassroots.
Fletcher still follows the money trail like an Assemblyman must. Kevin could have both. When the real vote comes down the money will follow him. But Kevin needs to double down on …GRASSROOTAGE…
Look at JFK, or Ross Perot…Grassrootage at the Presidential level. By the way Red. Negativity kicks ass. Ask John Kerry?
hq, if that is so, then why didn’t fletcher just say so? Why didn’t he say “i won’t do any negative campaigning, until the minute one of my opponents does”. Again, his promises….all of them…are cloaked in hypocrisy and pandering.
“keeping a promise like that is contingent on your opponents doing the same”
I haven’t seen excuse making for a dishonest politician since…well, since Hypocrisy defended Mayor Filner all those few weeks ago.
When I make a promise, it’s contigent on me keeping my promise.
Michael,
Ignoring for a second that Fletcher hasn’t put out any attack ads and in fact, the only campaign that has put out attack ads is Faulconer’s, I have a quick question for you: If you promised not to punch someone in the mouth, how many times would you let that person punch you in your mouth before you broke your original promise?
Red,
See my answer to Michael.
The question is why would anyone promise to not punch an attacker in the mouth? Making a promise you cannot keep is not honest.
Michael,
Again in case you missed it the first time, Fletcher’s campaign has not put out any attack ads. The only campaign that has is Faulconer’s.
Well which is it? The campaign should be commended for holding off so long? Or there were no attack ads?
I am positive that Nathan has no control or influence over those campaigning for him. So let’s keep pretending that, Hypocrisy.
touche Michael.
Faulconer’s ad attacking Fletcher was 100% true. He did miss 60% of his votes. Right or wrong? Was it conjecture or fact? The answer is Fact.
Fletcher’s attack on Alvarez was opinion and conjecture. Calling him inexperienced, an amateur and basically stupid is just baseless name calling.
My original comment was “Fletcher’s supporters should be commended for holding out as long as they did before attacking back.” Note the word “supporters.”
As for your final paragraph, I was previously reprimanded by Thor’s Assistant for insinuating that someone may have broken the law (same law that you insinuate Fletcher is violating actually). Let’s see what the response is this time.
As for pretending, maybe it is you who should stop pretending that you are outraged that campaign statements are not always adhered to. Or were you the one leading the calls for impeachment after “Read my lips, no new taxes”
I’m not outraged. Nobody expects Nathan to keep a promise, Hypocrisy.
I just thought it was funny that you, yet again, defend a lying politician and you did it by blaming his opponents.
It is all very reminiscent of your zealous, adamant defense of Mayor Filner.
Michael,
You are full of s… Please point out where I provided any defense of Filner’s behavior let alone a zealous, adamant one.
This is exactly the problem. Even the best intentioned have a limited ability to stay positive and debate the issues when the other guy is willing to repeatedly lie to debase your character.
SAN DIEGO — Only two weeks after Nathan Fletcher’s last denunciation of smear tactics on October 26, Fletcher supporters have sent out another political mailer attacking Councilman David Alvarez – with more in the queue.
“Apparently with less than two weeks until Election Day, Nathan and his friends are getting desperate and will try anything it takes to stop their slide in the polls, including once again breaking his positive campaign pledge to voters,” said Gabriel Solmer, Alvarez for Mayor Campaign Manager.
Following the money trail, the negative campaign mail piece was paid for by the Neighborhood Marketplace Association. According to the latest campaign disclosure, on November 7, the Neighborhood Marketplace Association received a $150,000 contribution from Restoring Trust in San Diego, a committee supporting Nathan Fletcher. Today, this negative piece landed in voter mailboxes affirming the campaign funding shell game was directed at attacking Alvarez.
“Why did they move money from the organization publicly supporting Nathan to this one? Did they do it to keep the public from knowing who is really behind a cheap shot against David?” Ms. Solmer continued. “These are the type of deceitful tactics that voters are sick and tired of and we all deserve better.”
“This broken campaign pledge and lack of transparency follows a pattern of misinformation and side-stepping on issues that has come to be expected from Nathan and his campaign,” added Ms. Solmer.
At last count, the San Diego Registrar of Voters stated that close to 98,000 ballots from approximately 365,000 absentee voters have already been returned.
“Almost one hundred thousand people voted based on information they had on the candidates. Will Nathan denounce these negative ads or is he ok that he lied to those who have already cast their ballot?” concluded Ms. Solmer.
– See more at: http://sdgln.com/commentary/2013/11/12/press-release-nathan-fletcher-breaks-positive-campaign-pledge-again#sthash.wMeDheK7.dpuf
I supported Alvarez in his run for City Council and was fully prepared to support him in his run for Mayor if he qualified for the General Election. However, his immature whining that his opponent’s supporters are now using distasteful campaign tactics, tactics that his supporters have used from the start, is making me reconsider whether he is really ready to be Mayor of the Country’s 8th largest city..
Hypo Q:
You say David is bad because he whines about negativism of Fletcher supporters. You say Nathan is good because only his supporters say negative things about David, not Nathan. According to such thinking Nathan must therefore have no control of, contact with, knowledge of, influence over, etc. his supporters. If one is such a babe in the woods in dealing with his own supporters how in the world would he ever deal with the vicissitudes of being Mayor of the country’s 8th largest city?
Mole,
It would be illegal for Fletcher to have any contact with those running Independent Expenditures on his behalf. When I made a claim similar to yours but referring to DeMaio, Thor’s Assistant slapped me down. What say you this time, T.A.?
Author
It would be illegal for Fletcher to have any contact with those running IEs on his behalf. Correct. If someone is claiming illegal activity, they’d better be able to prove it. If no proof, then don’t allege or imply it.
That said, the statement by Mole, “According to such thinking Nathan must therefore have no control of, contact with, knowledge of, influence over, etc. his supporters,” does not specifically say IE organizations. Based on the conversation above, it could be assumed to mean as much, although it would be hard to prove such a loose statement about “supporters” is libelous.
If IEs is meant as supporters, see our first paragraph above. If you stand by it within the context of “babe in the woods,” meaning that you believe the illegality takes place whether anyone can prove it or not, then you’d better be willing to say the same thing about Kevin and David.
But, not Aguirre. Never Aguirre.
Carry on.
Red<
I must have missed your comment above. So all of the attack ads on Fletcher are factual. Really?
"A do-nothing job." Fact or conjecture?
"A $400,000 salary." Fact or… a flat-out lie?
Author
Red:
Your last couple of comments were removed. Do you actually think it’s ok to come on here and make unsubstantiated statements, then when asked for proof, answer by saying we’ll have to ask someone else? Seriously?
http://www.10news.com/news/investigations/nathan-fletcher-confronts-questions-and-concerns-on-his-qualcomm-job
My comments are largely substantiated by Channel 10. I didn’t make them up.
Author
1) You used a higher number that is not in the story.
2) You indicated that he told other people that same number. We see no mention in the story of him telling other people that number.
Your comments, therefore, are in NO WAY “largely substantiated” by Channel 10. In fact, you can’t seem to substantiate them at all.
When asked to substantiate them, first you respond that we’ll have to ask the candidate directly, then you post a story with no substantiation.
Nearly every regular reader here is aware of the $400k number, how it originated in the 10News story, Fletcher’s failure to immediately just simply deny it if it wasn’t true, and Qualcomm’s subsequent documentation or quasi-documentation to show the number being lower, with questions even remaining about whether the lower number includes all benefits and options.
We can all draw conclusions and opinions from that. We don’t need other unsubstantiated items apparently being picked out of thin air.
We don’t care who the candidate is.
Opinion is opinion. Facts are facts. Please don’t confuse the two.