Yesterday many of you received an anonymously mailed packet of materials. The sender cowardly hid behind an obscure PO Box and untraceable name, but we all know who was responsible for this—Carl DeMaio.
It is fine to call into question someone’s record – I fought in a war, I can defend my record and look forward to a spirited campaign about our city’s future.
But, let’s not play adolescent games and be cowardly about it.
Let’s be honest. Let’s be truthful. And let’s be direct.
DeMaio is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Here are the facts:
1. Taxpayer ratings: DeMaio has raised this issue several times in debates, but continues to ignore the facts. My score was largely based on my support for legislation that protected California based businesses by ending a corporate tax loophole that only benefited out-of-state companies. The legislation would have permanently cut taxes on California small businesses. I will take a low score from any organization to stand with California small businesses. You can see a column on this issue written by a member of this committee: http://tiny.cc/CWIf2b. You can also see an exchange between DeMaio and myself on this topic http://tiny.cc/Q6Jf2b.
But at least I’m consistent. Carl DeMaio says he is against higher taxes. But read this link here to see DeMaio‘s support for a billion-dollar tax increase: http://tiny.cc/mcJf2b
2. Family values: Family values are very important to me. As a married father of two, I take very seriously my commitment to my wife and children. As a Christian of strong faith, I take seriously my commitment to God. However, I do not believe it is the role of government to legislate religion and impose our moral values. That is the role of the institutions of family and faith. We have looked to government for too much intervention in people’s individual freedoms and personal lives. Please know and appreciate that I am consistent in this position—regardless of what community I am speaking to and how it might affect a scorecard. I know from conversations with many of you that Carl Demaio tells you he will never advocate or push social issues related to sexual orientation. However, this doesn’t square with the statements and commitments he makes in other communities. Like or dislike my positions, I have always been upfront, honest, and straightforward.
My record is one that I am proud of. Here are a few highlights:
1. I have never voted for a tax increase
2. I led by example taking a 26% pay cut, have no pension, not even a 401k. DeMaio refused to take a 6% pay cut that he voted to impose on others. That isn’t leadership.
3. I have consistently stood up to labor — I have one of the lowest labor scorecards
4. I have been endorsed by Governor Pete Wilson, Joel Anderson, Mark Wyland, Martin Garrick, and the California Small Business Administration
5. I have one of the best records in the assembly: Authored Chelsea’s Law, passed regulatory relief, protected California jobs, and fought for local infrastructure funding.
6. I fully support the Comprehensive Pension Reform Initiative, support the ban on project labor agreements, and have taken the no tax pledge.
We deserve a Mayor who will be honest and not hide behind anonymous surrogates and PO Boxes. I look forward to Saturday’s debate and discussion.
I’ll put my record of consistently siding on behalf of taxpayers against every candidate in this race.
But, I will man up and do it myself. Feel free to respond directly to me or call me any time if you have a question.
Our party deserves better. You deserve better.
Semper Fidelis,
– Nathan
Comments 30
Sad Nathan. Really sad.
“However, I do not believe it is the role of government to legislate religion and impose our moral values. That is the role of the institutions of family and faith. ”
Your vote on SB 48 suggests otherwise, Sir,
Team DeMaio responds…
http://sdrostra.com/?p=25678
Just a reminder to “surged” to select an anonymous handle and stick with it. Thanks.
I wouldn’t put it past Carl to employ underhanded tactics in order to win.
Thankfully with Nathan Fletcher we get pension reform and solid leadership — instead of consistent lies and lemmings.
Here is another Fletcher Fact from the Sacramento Bee:
Moderate Republican wins
Fletcher, a moderate San Diego Republican, received a budget boost from Perez of $37,000 last summer, which he used to hire press aide Amy Thoma at $7,084 per month. Thoma previously had helped the lawmaker unveil his candidacy for San Diego mayor. She left the Capitol to join a GOP consulting firm this year and now serves as Fletcher’s deputy campaign manager.
Months after Thoma’s hiring, Fletcher, who often is courted by Democrats on tight budget-related votes, bucked most of his GOP caucus to help pass a controversial plan to raise about $1 billion in corporate taxes, mostly from out-of-state companies, and redirect that money toward tax breaks for California businesses and individuals. The plan later died in the Senate.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/06/v-mobile/4241857_budgets-were-tight-but-some-california.html#storylink=cpy
First of all, “Fletcher Facts” (if that is your REAL name), not sure what staffing has to do with any of this.
Second of all, he addresses that vote in the post above. That was a good bill that focused on tax breaks for California small businesses.
cross post – The DeMaio camp sends out a packet of information with Fletcher’s voting record and legislative scores from legitimate organizations. Fletcher considers this an underhanded attack?
Sounds like Fletcher is upset with his record and trying to downplay his lack of Republican credentials to me.
Vidosic, as someone who is still wrestling with which candidate to support, I disagree with your notion that increasing your public office budget and staff, and then using those staff members on your campaign is not important. As a tax payer I find it repugnant the way dollars are p*ssed away while our country is suffering through economic turmoil. It’s always easy to play with other people’s money.
Vidosic – If you would have actually read the article you would have found that Fletcher was the ONLY Republican to get his office budget increased by Speaker Perez (which gave him the funds to hire Thoma) during a time when everyone in the state was getting their budgets slashed. Why? Because Fletcher “bucked most of his GOP caucus to help pass a controversial plan to raise about $1 billion in corporate taxes.”
Unbeliveable how DeMaio supporters continue to stress that Carl “doesn’t accept a pension” or “the perks of City Council” to pretend he’s in touch with City voters. He’s a multi-millionaire! He has no understanding of City employee budget issues, especially those who make a fraction of Carl’s yearly earnings.
Team Fletcher, your comment on condemning DeMaio about not taking a 6% paycut is grossly misleading. Carl was one the first city employees to VOLUNTARILY turn down a pension benefit. That savings dwarfs the 6% negligible salary savings. Since then, three other councilmembers have done the same — this is leading by example.
And unless I’m mistaken, the 26% pay cut you reference was applied for all State Assembly and Senators across the board and was an involuntary reduction you had to accept.. There hasn’t been a retirement plan for State legislature since the 90’s. So essentially, even the worst Democrats in the legislature could make an identical claim as you of “leading by example”.
This brings up an interesting question. One can only assume that on the off chance CPR is defeated either in the ballots or courts, DeMaio will turn down a pension as mayor as he did as a Councilmember. I know for a fact that Ray Ellis and Scott Sherman have also pledged to not accept a pension. If a pension were available with you as the mayor, would you accept it?
D7 voter, he isn’t using state funds to pay for his campaign staff. That would be illegal. If you read the article it clearly states that she left the capitol earlier this year and now works for a consulting firm.
Fletcher Facts – again, that was a good bill that would have directed massive tax breaks towards California businesses. It was supported by other known liberal rabble rousers* such as Jon Fleischman of the Flashreport. http://www.calbuzz.com/2011/09/flash-advises-gop-trade-biz-tax-break-for-tax-cuts/
*not a known liberal rabble rouser
As a grizzled observer of campaign promises, I’d like to see such promises backed by meaningful, enforceable contracts. For instance, I’ve seen people claim that they wouldn’t raise taxes, then turn RIGHT AROUND and vote for higher taxes big-time (I suspect mine is not a unique observation).
Same goes for promising to take pay cuts or not take a pension.
Is it possible to develop an enforceable contract with a specific penalty of sufficient magnitude to compel compliance with such promises? Ideally such a promise would include actually BONDING the agreement.
I suspect this is easier said than done, but legal minds might want to think about this option and draw up such an agreement.
I’m tired of broken promises — such as Obama’s 2009 pledge to cut the federal budget deficit in half. Let’s get some politicians’ skin in the game.
Illegal, yes. Less than ethical, also yes. I’m trying to understand why it was that she was on the state payroll at all? It seems to me that her value at all times was for the mayoral campaign. These are the kinds of games that politicians play, claiming stuff is all legal and on the up and up while anyone with half a brain knows we are getting hosed, that really gets my blood boiling. Until politicians start acting like those of us in the real world their approval ratings will continue to tank.
It’s clear that Thoma was hired for the mayoral campaign of Fletcher. She was hired right when things were gearing up and the candidates were announcing their intentions.
What’s hilarious though is that she hasn’t been worth a dime to his campaign from any of that money he got from our esteemed, liberal Assembly Speaker.
“Team Fletcher, your comment on condemning DeMaio about not taking a 6% paycut is grossly misleading.”
So is your assumption that Nathan Fletcher supports tax increases. Nathan has never — not once — ever supported a tax increase.
South Sunny Bayer, I’m not sure if you’re suffering from heat stroke, but I never even brought up Nathan’s record on taxes, nor have I ever in the past. Your comment directed at me is completely irrelevant.
I’ll recap one more time: Fletcher’s comment about leading by example with personal pay cuts while condemning DeMaio is completely misleading (and ironic given the subject of this post). In 2009 in his first day in office, DeMaio voluntarily refused a pension effectively declining 21 thousand dollars compensation annually, equal to about 28% of his salary. Fletcher in 2011, after two years of service, absorbed a pay cut only when it was imposed on all 120 legislators.
The fact that Team Fletcher felt this point was so important to highlight in bold and claim he was leading by example definitely warrants clarification with direct facts. DeMaio has led the charge by example in making VOLUNTARY compensation concessions. Kevin Faulconer and Lorie Zapf have adopted Carl’s no-pension policy and current candidates Ellis and Sherman will also follow Carl’s lead if elected and pensions are available.
I ask again, will Fletcher?
Nathan stated months ago that he would take no pension as mayor.
Well it looks like the man said to call him directly if you have a problem. He shouldn’t be too hard to find. Maybe Steve, “Surge,” Aynd Rand and TWM might want to step out from behind their Facebook photos and sassy blogger handles and give him a ring. Or you could just keep posting your greatest hits here with the rest of the boys from the Island of Misfit Toys.
The difference is that while DeMaio was making his millions, Fletcher was fighting for our freedom by leading troops into battle in Iraq, a decision which earned him significantly less, at least monetarily.
The difference is that DeMaio is a single man and Fletcher has a young family to support.
The difference is that DeMaio doesn’t need the money that his next job will pay, while Fletcher does.
I, for one, commend Fletcher for continuing to want to serve and am saddened that it has come to the point that he, or anyone else, has to promise to accept less in salary and in retirement to gain the endorsement of the Republican Party.
Government by intention rather than results, Alger? That’s not a Team Freedom principle.
Brian,
Help me out here. What does your question mean and what does it have to do with my comment?
I don’t understand why you don’t even have a 401k?
Jim at the County… Huh?
I personally think good pay for lawmakers is preferable to paying them less, making them more vulnerable to bribery from crony capitalists and other special interests.
Alger is right! Take a look at this bio and tell me that anyone could live on the table scraps that these jobs produced.
http://www.flashreport.org/blog/author/mindy-fletcher/
Truly, while Carl was being given money hand over fist, the Fletcher household was hardly getting by on the meager salary of a soldier and a political operative.
Alger, any word back from the pope on when Nathan’s sainthood will be announced?
How many people are starting to think that some consultant told Nathan to always mention that he fought in a war when making a public statement because it plays well with voters?
“Man up”, Nathan? Carl DeMaio is in favor of tax increases, Nathan? With your every new act of desperation I grow closer to donating to the DeMaio campaign and I don’t even vote in the city of San Diego.
What’s unbelievable is you’re not being accurate and your latest moves have been anything, but honest, truthful, and direct.
Do you remember a year and a half ago you posted a story on your Facebook page about helping to get rid of the redevelopment cap? And I commented on why we aren’t working on plugging the enormous hole in the state’s massive deficit. You deleted my comment and called me. I told you this looks more like you are positioning yourself to run for mayor of San Diego by building a multi-millionaire a new, downtown ballpark. Which…you assured me wasn’t your motivation and wouldn’t happen. You said you were “fundamentally opposed” to the idea of private/public partnerships and just wanted to keep the money local so we could improve San Diego’s water pipes and sewage. I don’t think a week passed before I saw you on the news with Jerry Sanders in a story about how great it will be now that Assemblyman Fletcher secured the money for a new stadium.
http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/SanDiegoChargers/newindex.htm
And your spin on leaving the Republican Party…it makes no sense. You got a ton of support and had a ton of influence/power. Any complaints you have with the GOP would be due to your own failures as part of the SD GOP leadership. What were you not able to do as a Republican that you can do now (besides run for mayor as the GOP endorsed candidate)? You got everything you wanted from the Republican Party. Everyone supported you. You were the SD GOP golden boy. Practically Republican royalty. But the Central Committee voted for DeMaio who leads in the polls and has more experience with the city. Many voted for Carl whispering that they can’t wait to see you run for State Senator on your way to governor. Boy…sounds like they really see you and your moderate voting record as the enemy. And how do you respond? By throwing a massive tantrum because they dare cross you. Few (if any) Republicans had anything truly bad to say about you. I mean you gave a speech as a Republican assemblyman in favor of getting rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Only to be ostracized and attacked? NO! The UT wrote a story about how you walk on water and the Log Cabin REPUBLICANs endorsed you for mayor!
The fact is you campaigned hard for the endorsement of the Republican Party before you decided you didn’t think they should endorse. It was only after you realized you didn’t have the votes that Republicans Brian Jones, Joel Anderson, and Duncan Hunter asked the Central Committee to not endorse at all. You even gave the San Diego Republican Party a fat check within weeks of their vote to endorse. The fact is this is all just a stunt. I, and many others, who questioned your sincerity and your motivation over the years and pointed out your self-centered ambition feel pretty vindicated. You talk about how people who disagree with you aren’t the enemy, well, people who disagree with you aren’t a powerful conspiracy mad at you for siding with Gov. Brown either. You took this race from a spirited campaign talking about issues that San Diego needs to face to a really weird, paranoid, tantrum. Congratulations.
Michael Schwartz’s statement above should be it’s own post on this site. Mr. Schwartz is clearly speaking from the heart.