Just the last few days…
Wednesday, from Kristin Gaspar:
“Assemblyman Rocky Chavez made it official with an endorsement of my campaign for Supervisor.
“I am so honored to have Rocky’s support. His commitment to public service, distinguishing himself in the Marine Corps and then recommitting himself to public service as an elected official is truly commendable, and I look forward to working with him as a member of the Board of Supervisors.”
Mayor Kevin Faulconer Endorses Kristin Gaspar for Supervisor
(Encinitas, Calif.) – San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer has announced his endorsement of Encinitas Mayor Kristin Gaspar for County Board of Supervisors.
“Mayor Gaspar has been an outstanding leader for Encinitas and North County,” said Faulconer. “As the first elected mayor, she’s balanced the budget and kept the city’s focus on delivering services effectively while protecting taxpayers. As a small businesswoman, she understands what it takes to create jobs and will work well with the Board to keep the focus on growing our economy and protecting our quality of life.”
“I’m proud to have Mayor Faulconer’s support,” said Gaspar. “He’s shown how people with diverse opinions and backgrounds can work together to find solutions that put our neighborhoods first. His leadership has restored faith in city government and his commitment to reform has helped put the City on sound financial footing while restoring services devastated in the recession and pension crisis. I look forward to working with him as a partner on the Board of Supervisors.”
Mayor Gaspar was first elected to the City Council in 2010 and became the first elected Mayor of Encinitas, in 2014. She and her husband, Paul, are successful small business owners employing nearly 100 people in the region.
San Diego City Councilmembers Endorse Gaspar for Supervisor
(Encinitas, Calif.) – Four members of the San Diego City Council have announced their support for Encinitas Mayor Kristin Gaspar for City Council. Lorie Zapf, Scott Sherman, Mark Kersey, and Chris Cate announced their support for the Third District seat, which is 65% within the City of San Diego.
“Mayor Gaspar is a successful small businesswoman who has been very effective as a member of the Encinitas City Council, and as Mayor,” the four said in a joint statement. “We’ve worked with her on regional concerns and admired her leadership in helping make Encinitas one of the best run cities in the region. We know she will be an important partner to the City of San Diego as a member of the Board of Supervisors.”
“The majority of the Third Supervisorial District is within the City of San Diego and having this show of support is very important to my campaign,” said Gaspar. “As we face important regional challenges like water sustainability, roads and infrastructure, and creating good jobs for local residents, regional partnerships like this one are critical to success. These leaders have been instrumental to putting the City on firm financial footing and I’m looking forward to working with them to take San Diego County – and City – to the next level.”
Chavez’s endorsement is the kiss of death for any campaign. Sorry, Kristin. If you think this is acceptable, then you have no business running for ANY office.
“Chavez’s endorsement is the kiss of death for any campaign.”
Love or hate Rocky, if only the world were so simple.
How so, Ms. Grube?
So last night’s “yay or nay” went mysteriously in Gaspar’s favor.
(Or maybe not so mysterious.)
I wonder why people so cynical about politics?
Craig, may be too insider-ey, even for this crowd. Care to ‘splain?
From what I gather, Gary Felien made the motion to suspend the rules and proceed with candidate endorsements. But after vocal yay or nay of the Central Committee, the motion was deemed to have failed by Tony Kvaric. Most believe Sam had the votes for the endorsement last night, and that the denial of the motion was purposeful delaying tactic meant to give Gaspar more time.
Ms. Grube may not like it, but Assemblyman Rocky Chavez beat the party endorsed candidate, Ms. Hodges, in a route (my memory says 17%). Rocky is very popular in his district. Congrats to Kristin for getting his endorsement.
The Committee made an excellent decision to respect the endorsement process (something I wrote a lot about at the end of last year). Neither candidate was vetted by the Executive Committee nor had the Central Committee members been given time to question the candidates.
If Mayor Abed “had” the votes to secure 2/3 of the Committee, it wasn’t noticeable when more than half the Committee voted against a surprise endorsement vote.
Maybe they just wanted to respect the process or maybe Mayor Abed won’t be endorsed.
But, Brian, why would Kvaric ignore the wishes of over half the committee who supported Felien’s motion?
Is that his province?
Over half the committee voted against the motion to suspend the rules.
That is no surprise whatsoever.
If Abed had actually secured 2/3 of the committee who were also willing to make an endorsement without a vetting process (very doubtful in this instance), that same 2/3 would have been willing to suspend the rules. Not even half were willing to suspend the rules.
Just because people want there to always be a Krvaric-driven conspiracy, doesn’t mean there is one.
“But, Brian, why would Kvaric ignore the wishes of over half the committee who supported Felien’s motion?”
Because over half the committee voted against Felien’s motion. Felien, Abed and Kern tried to pull a fast one by asking to “suspend the rules”. The Committee Chairman entertained the motion, put it to a vote, and the motion was denied by a majority of the Committee.
It’s exactly what I asked for in my series last year. The endorsement process is improving and activists are gaining confidence that the process isn’t rigged. Good on the Chairman.
That being the case, it sounds like “Krvaric denying the wishes of over half the committee” is a false narrative.
But that WASN’T the case, my fine Nordic peanut gallery. Clearly audible was the prevalence of the over half who voted in favor Felien’s motion.
Thus the subsequent widespread consternation among attendees.
I don’t know Kvaric or anything about him.
But I think I’m beginning to learn.
I was in the peanut gallery. It sounded like it went against the motion to me. What is so urgent that Abed and Kern have to be endorsed without deliberation? Moreover, why do they need to be endorsed at all?
Both Sam Abed and Jerry Kern have been collecting endorsements from committee members for at least two months for the purpose of asking for an early endorsement from the committee. This process was no secret. Both candidates believed they could get an early endorsement based on their years of involvement with the committee, and their long political careers advancing a conservative political agenda in their jurisdictions. The candidates believed they reached the 2/3 level of support and because I support them, I was asked before the meeting to introduce a motion to suspend the rules to ask for an immediate endorsement.
For the committee to move to fast track an endorsement requires the proponents to jump through a lot of hoops – as it should. First a vote must take place to amend the agenda and pass by 50%, then a vote takes place to suspend the rules that must pass by 2/3rd’s, then a vote takes place to endorse each candidate that must pass by 2/3rd’s.
The only vote that took place was to amend the agenda and it was a voice vote. From where I sat at the podium, it sounded like the no’s had it by a small margin, so I believe the chairman made the right call. I believe Abed and Kern have 2/3rd’s support in the committee, but there was apparently a big disconnect between what the candidates thought they were getting with the endorsements – support for an early vote – and what committee members thought they were giving – support for a vote at a later time.
The process worked perfectly. The committee wasn’t ready to move forward and it didn’t. The candidates, Abed and Kern, will have to communicate better to the committee specifically why they want an early vote and determine if support exists to ask for it.
Mr. Felien, thanks for that. That may put the concern to rest.
Sounds like someone should have called for a show of hands…
“The process worked perfectly. The committee wasn’t ready to move forward and it didn’t.”
Exactly. Two things should be discussed prior to endorsement of one Republican over another:
1- Why? Is one of the candidates so out of touch with the Republican Party principles that the weight of a party endorsement is necessary? In both cases, (Supe race and 76AD), I don’t think that’s true.
2- What are the consequences of an early endorsement? If it’s to rally donors, activists and volunteers against a poor candidate, it makes sense. If all the endorsement is going to do is divide our donors, activists, and volunteers, restraint is the better option.
Yes, some think that “the process worked perfectly, but others — with good reason — do not.
I agree with Chris.
As the maker of the motion to amend the agenda, I could have asked for a roll call vote, but if you’re in a debate over whether or not you have reached 50%, you’re not close to the 2/3rd’s required for later votes. Better to let the motion die.
That could be true Gary; however, it is very likely that if there was a 50% with a show of hands that when it got to the vote for the nomination the 2/3rds of people who had agreed to endorse would have voted for that endorsement since that is what they committed to. They committed to an endorsement vote, not an agreement to approve an agenda change. So it is likely that more people would vote for the endorsement than the change to the agenda. However, there may not have been enough votes after putting it on the agenda to approve the early endorsement before the endorsement vote. Who knows?
As the maker of the motion you don’t seem exactly passionate about it and it sounds like no one else was passionate enough to make another motion and call for a hand count so it is what it is.
Gary makes a good point, Craig. Had the rules been suspended, and the endorsement been defeated, the news headline would have been “Republicans vote against endorsing Kern and Abed”.
I’m interested in what the rush is to endorse. Are the Abed and Kern campaigns unable to compete against Gaspar and Graham or is there something wrong with Gaspar and Graham that Gary isn’t telling us?
Gary, what is wrong with Kristin Gaspar and Phil Graham that the Republican Party should want to exclude them from consideration to its voters?
Good point, Brian. But then, rushing to endorse isn’t exactly unknown.
Take District Two, for example.
“Take District Two, for example.”
Great example of why RPSDC was right to endorse early. Jacob is horrible on property rights, engaged in a shadow boxing fight with an already settled casino site, and denied her constituents the proper remediation of the impact of said casino.
I think Jacob has been in office since Fred McGriff played for the Padres and Stan Humphries was playing for the Chargers
For someone with such a terrible property rights record, she sure is popular with property owners. Especially developers and farmers– many of whom I know well.
On the other hand, I’d like to hear the party justify its support for a candidate who (among other objectionable things) has been so enthusiastic about the preposterous Jerry Brown/Barack Obama wind and solar farms sprouting up all over the County.
Further, while Dianne’s been in office a good spell, at least she (unlike some) isn’t running for the sake of a paycheck.
But we digress…