The Barkeep Goes to the Republican Convention

BarkeepBarkeep 17 Comments

Share

I had a few with The Barkeep tonight. Downtown. The normal place. If I ramble you can figure out why. I took notes though. He went to the Republican Convention this week at the Capitol. Here’s my version of what he said:

The big fight was about whether or not the GOP would endorse. That’s all anyone flapped their gums about all damn weekend. Everyone supported an open way of endorsing in congressional and state races. So they got behind their closed doors and decided how to do it (har har har). Seems we have to endorse now because they passed a law that says the top two in those races get to go to November no matter if it’s two Republicans, two Democrats, or two Peace and Freedom hippies…

A dozen San Diego Republicans tanked up at the bar at night on Saturday. What did I learn? Although there is some talk here, most of the San Diegians at the bar think Fletcher stays in the Mayor’s race and that he has a shot. A vocal minority in the corner thinks that’s horseshit and he’s out. Wyland thinks Garrick should run for Supervisor against Slater, and Garrick listens and nods. Mark Muir from Encinitas is looking to run for Assembly, escorted by Stocks. Much talk of what happens to the seat Fletcher holds when it’s carved up.

Overall the girls are younger and easier on the eyes… but so are the men so no good for me.

Can’t write another word off to bed. Maybe the second half of the notes sheet tomorrow.

Share

Comments 17

  1. Did anyone catch Councilman Kevin Faulconer’s tweet this morning that something had to be right with his plan if it pissed off the far right and far left?

    You mean like the Lincoln Club Kevin? The men and women who supported you for years? Or do you mean the Taxpayer’s Association? Or the local GOP?

    Curl back up on the Mayor’s lap.
    ______

    The Tweet…

    From: @kevin_faulconer
    Sent: Mar 25, 2011 7:44a
    Thanks for all the feedback, Tweeps. We’ve upset the far left and we’ve upset the far right. That tells me we struck the right balance.

  2. Apparently Kevin Faulconer is a middle of the roader. You know what is in the middle of the road, yellow stripes and dead skunks.

  3. Alger,

    That is debatable when they are polled with sink, swim or tread water. The middle knows that San Diego really does have serious problems.

    They know that more of the status quo is a sinker. Their tax burden is both onerous and burdensome leaving them in no mood to tread water. They are ready to swim for safe shores.

    Middle of the road leadership has provided Bailout Murphy and Dithering Sanders. Next up will depend on who can produce the best leadership and education. I hope it is not more of the same failed establishment lapdogs.

  4. Mole,

    “Middle of the road leadership has provided Bailout Murphy and Dithering Sanders.” I think you just made my point. Given a choice, the public will usually choose the more moderate candidate. That is why candidates always try to move to the center for the general election.

  5. Alger,
    My point is that in the coming election struggle good leadership, that is leadership who offers a clearly defined choice, with an educational campaign as to why that clearly defined choice is right, can win. To accept a “No, that can’t work.” position is to condemn San Diego to institutionalized failure.

    I do not think that is acceptable.

  6. It appears Alger is arguing that since most of the voters are middle of the road, such is the reason most candidates feel the need to move to the center, and he agrees that such moderation makes for electability. Mole is arguing that middle of the road policies make for failed leadership, and has in the past. Thor would argue that the political environment is far different than it was even a couple of years ago and even many voters who consider themselves moderate are sick and tired of the status quo. The national and San Diego city voting results (if not the rest of California) of last November lend significant credence to this thought. For candidates, moderation in style may be very different than the political policies of the status quo.

  7. Lorena Gonzalez would now be a Member of the San Diego
    city council, and possibly San Diego’s next Mayor, it if were
    not for the courage of Mr. Kevin Faulconer.

    Faulconer won a very tough, close special election contest
    in January 2006, defeating Ms. Gonzalez 51.5% to 48.5%.

    Kevin Faulconer deserves our lasting respect, and gratitude,
    for winning that critical City Council race. “Mayor Lorena
    Gonzalez.” Think about that, critics.

    It is quite possible to be a fan of BOTH Kevin Faulconer and
    of Carl DeMaio. That is my position.

    And I’m putting my name to that opinion.

  8. I would argue that the 2010 election results were a reaction to the Democrats moving too far to the left (healthcare, bailouts, deficit, etc.) and not a cry for far-right politics.

    I believe Rostra refers to itself as center-right. Even Newt Gingrich, speaking at a “conference of Conservative Republicans,” referred to the Country as center-right. I believe both are an attempt to have a wide appeal and to offend as few as possible.

    After 2008, the headlines trumpeted “the end of the conservative movement, but the left over-reached and today’s headlines tell a different story. In my humble opinion, if the right continues to overreach (attacks on Planned Parenthood, NPR and collective bargaining), they will meet the same fate.

  9. Alger,
    If one is a “mugwump”, identified and defined by Teddy Roosevelt as a person politically sitting on the fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other side, then the squishy middle ground is heaven on earth. One can whine about everything and be responsible for nothing. One can declare there is no right or wrong, just truuust in meeeee!

    You suggest that if people to the right of yourself will just quit fighting for what they believe in then they can have what really counts, getting elected. If they will just take one step forward and two steps backward then they will have arrived as truly civil people. Useless, but really civil.

  10. Mole,

    Actually what I am really saying is that if you believe in this country and believe in its greatness, then maybe you should believe that it doesn’t need radical change every election cycle. Perhaps with just some simple fine tuning, we will be just fine.

    Being a moderate doesn’t mean I don’t believe in anything; I have very strong opinions. I am also able to see the gray between your black and the liberal’s white (or vice versa, if you prefer).

  11. Garrick thinking about the Supervisors race is the real story here. He self financed his Assembly race, and has represented the district for years. This is a candidate who could beat Slater or drive her out of the race!

  12. Good to know, Alger. Thanks for explaining that if we agree with you, then we “believe in this country and believe in its greatness.” Otherwise, we don’t.

    I wonder which side you would have been on in the American Revolution. Well, actually I don’t. You defer to authority and relish the status quo, seeking gradual change. You would have been a Tory backing the king. Still do so today, apparently.

    I fondly remember the quote attributed to conservative Republican U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallop in his farewell speech in the Senate: “The difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is that, if the Democrats proposed burning down the White House, the Republicans would immediately counter with a measure to phase it in over three years.”

    Today the GOP is making an effort (at least on the state and local level) to change that compromising mindset to one of decisive leadership based on bedrock principles. When it comes to fiscal issues, I’m on board with that new trend.

  13. Richard,

    I actually wasn’t questioning your patriotism or that of anyone else who might have an opinion contrary to mine. I was simply giving my opinion that extreme political swings every two years does no one any good. You are certainly entitled to disagree.

    Now that you mention it though, I do find it interesting that many who disagree politically with President Obama have no qualms about questioning his patriotism. I assume you would never do that.

  14. Alger,
    5o,ooo,ooo abortions, 50,000,000 dead babies, that is moderation? Sticking your head in the sand on that one is cultural suicide. Stalin said,”Kill one and you have a martyr, kill a million and they are just statistics.” A moderate warfare/welfare state is a bloody statistical morass, you know, like an Orwellian boot on a man’s face forever. Following up on Orwell, the vain/all knowing moderate tells us, “We are all equal, just us moderates are more equal than others.” We need change, and it will not come from moderates who just want to kick the can down the road.

  15. Alger, you assume correct (well, rhetorically correct — your inference is clear — and wrong). I have never questioned Obama’s patriotism. After all, one can make the case that a liberal who wants the U.S. to adopt socialism is just advocating what he or she thinks is best for the country.

    Frankly blind patriotism is not my cup of tea. Never bought into the mantra “My country, right or wrong.”

    I’m a throwback to the 60’s — “question authority.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.