Fletcher appreciates County Republican Party now more than ever

Steve Gramm Steve Gramm 15 Comments


Just what the heck is the County Republican Party doing in exacerbating a feud with Nathan Fletcher?  Am I wrong in thinking the Fletcher campaign must be loving the shots being taken at them? That Fletcher must appreciate the party feeding his message?

Fletcher’s payment obligations for an event he attended are a different matter; that’s not the issue.

To the extent Fletcher can truly label himself as an independent in the minds of voters, the better he is likely to do in June, especially now that party member communication resources will flow in Carl DeMaio’s direction. The more the party bashes Fletcher, the more he can say “see, this is exactly what I’m talking about with the incessant partisan BS,” thus leveraging it into convincing voters he really is an independent; that he was simply sick and tired of the games, now playing out against him.

How about, “We are clearly disappointed that Nathan is leaving the party, but we will always welcome him back, as we know in his heart he is and always will be a Republican.

But, no, let’s instead bolster his independent credentials.

No, this isn’t a suggestion that the party back down from a fight.  The party can potentially target messaging around Fletcher’s gambit with blocs of voters where it will make a difference (Republicans as a start), a far different strategy than open shotgun strikes for all to witness, including those who are fed up with the incessant partisan BS.

Reader thoughts?


Comments 15

  1. I would like someone to explain to me how does it benefit the party if Tony has alienated Nathan so much and it comes down to a Filner/Fletcher runoff?

    Tony has taken this personally and is not doing what is in the best interest of the party.  All he is doing is ensuring the GOP is powerless if Nathan becomes mayor.

  2. There’s an interesting commentary in the U-T by Bonny Forrest, who describes herself as being in the political middle like Nathan Fletcher.

    Oddly for someone “stuck in the middle,” Forrest criticizes only Republicans by name, not Democrats. So in the interest of getting a better handle on just what kind of independent Forrest is, I looked for more information.

    According to Campaignmoney.com, a Bonny Forrest contributed $2,000 to Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004. (This Bonny Forrest is identified as a psychologist, like the author, so it’s a safe bet they are one and the same).

    In 2008, Bonny Forrest contributed $1,000 to the congressional campaign of Democrat Brian Baird.

    The site has no record of her donating to any Republicans.

    And Forrest’s Facebook page indicates she likes four television shows. She is a fan of Rachel Maddow and Al Gore’s Current TV. (The two others are nonpolitical: Good Morning San Diego and Giada De Laurentiis).

    I think that information gives a better idea of just what kind of moderate Forrest really is.

  3. Richard,
    But wait, there’s more!

    I’m sure you noticed that the U-T’s article on Monday’s tax protests, since you are quoted in it. Did you also notice it quoted Murtaza Baxamusa without disclosing his labor union job?


    Supporters of the Brown proposal contend that for too long California has dragged along the bottom in terms of its ability to pay for basic services such as education, health care and social services.

    “There is no fat to cut, no flesh to cut, we’re cut to the bones,” said Murtaza Baxamusa of the Middle Class Taxpayers Association in San Diego.

    Still, he worries about the sales tax component disproportionately harming the poorest and most vulnerable people in the state.

    “What we are really seeing is an across-the-board sense of whether or not that sacrifice is warranted in return for that investment that we need to take care of those that are neediest, to build a first-class state and to be competitive globally,” Baxamusa said.


    As Rostrafarians know, the Middle Class Taxpayers Association is not an independent taxpayer group. It was organized by labor unions, named to fool the public into thinking it’s an authentic taxpayer group. It certainly fooled the U-T reporters.

    Here’s the not-so-well-hidden agenda: Unions actively promote public works projects to keep their members employed, even if the project is a steaming pile. That goal is jeopardized by tax and spending cuts.

    In other words, Baxamusa’s group has a vested interest in preventing tax cuts, just like the other clones created to perpetuate union agendas under other deceptive names.

    There’s nothing wrong with having an agenda, as long as it is in the open. Richard Rider is certainly open with his agenda, agree with it or not.

    But hidden-agenda activists spin reporters all the time. Journalists worth their salt serve the public by identifying these hidden agendas and bring them into the open. That’s the difference between reporting and stenography.

  4. Steve:


    Don’t say anything. The sooner Krvaric figures out that he’s self-destructing, the sooner the show will end.

  5. Tony,
    I’m personally far more appalled by how Brooks screwed up his facts than by his politics, mistake faithfully copied by his fellow journalistic solons. Perhaps their Manichean world view leaves no place for libertarian-leaning Republicans. Or perhaps they just can’t be bothered with pesky facts that contradict what they want readers to believe.

  6. Bradley hits it on the head with that last post. The thing that galls me the most is the entirely DIFFERENT article that could have been written by Brooks that would have suggested the somewhat amazing fact that 2 of the three GOP candidates are gay and their sexual orientation is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevent. I bet San Diego’s endorsement of Carl has almost no other parallels in the rest of the country. For those of us of a libertarian bent, it was really heartening to see. Now if we could just get off the drug fetish….

    I like Brooks when he is thinking about Burke and what European Conservative thinking might mean for 21st century America. I HATE his fetish for the middle and his “robust hamiltonianism” which, in my mind, is essentially east coast intellectual code for Cronie capitalism and ahistorical doggie poo.

  7. The NY TIMES uses Brooks as a tool — weakly representing the GOP viewpoint. And, based on Brooks’ pathetic “Ode to Fletcher” article, he IS a tool (and a fool).

    At the very least, he does not make even a half-hearted attempt to research his columns. Where’s the vaunted NY TIMES fact-checking when we need it?

    Oh, wait — this IS the NY TIMES, after all. Never mind.

  8. Crusty old conservative GOP U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallop (WY) was often less than pleased with his party’s compromising mentality (the Brooks trademark). Supposedly in his farewell speech on the Senate floor, Wallop said something like this:

    “”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.”

    And Brooks would laud the party for this sensibly moderate position.

  9. Brad, you hit on a sore point with me on this “Middle Class Taxpayers Association.” I don’t fault the unions for this slick misrepresentation — it’s the PRESS that fails to do its job on fully disclosing this biased and bogus outfit.

    What taxpayer association favors every tax increase that comes down the road? Only the Middle Class Taxpayers Association.

  10. What really gets journalists’ dander up? The AP Stylebook has blessed the use of “hopefully” to begin a sentence. Grammar cops from journalism professors to rank and file reporters are mortified! The barbarians have entered the Citadel of English!

    That all languages evolve, and the use of hopefully at the beginning of a sentence doesn’t reduce clarity, concerns them not.

    Read about this horror on Romenesko, the indispensable journalism site.

    So a fact-challenged New York Times columnist (please click this link for a must-read story about Brooks’ penchant for factual carelessness) and peers write a grossly distorted account of the San Diego mayoral race, and journalists say little. The AP changes its stance on a minor grammatical issue and journalists wax apoplectic.

    This, ladies and gentleman, is the sad state of modern journalism,. Our Fourth Estate is more concerned with enforcing arbitrary rules of grammar than whether their carefully crafted words actually convey facts as opposed to political spin. And so we slouch toward Newspeak.

  11. Here’s a quote from the must-read article about Brooks I linked to:

    “Brooks, by way of contrast, draws caricatures. Whether out of sloppiness or laziness, the examples he conjures to illustrate well-founded premises are often unfounded, undermining the very points he’s trying to make.”

    That was published in 2004.

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.