Comments 14

  1. Did the Log Cabin Republicans actually suggest that Fletcher best extols the “conservative virtues of individual liberty, personal freedom, and limited government”?

    Fletcher voted to:

    1- grant the police warrantless searches of cell phones.
    2-Voted to ban liquor self checkouts in a grocery store (rather than hold businesses accountable for age verification).
    3-Impose mandatory snowsport helmets on minors (regardless of their parents’ wishes),
    4-banned the first amendment expression at funerals (rather than let property owners decide what is best for conduct on their property),
    5-voted to tax olive trees,
    6- voted to force a mandate on employers’ decisions about health insurance coverage,
    7- voted to impose state mandates about how to care for animals

    Am I missing anything here?

  2. Sadly, the Log Cabin “Republicans” seem to make gay issues their top priority. Limited government and fiscal frugality are also important to this outfit — just not AS important.

  3. Richard, you can argue that Carl’s plan for the city’s finances is better than Nathan’s. I don’t even necessarily disagree with you. I like Carl a lot and would vote for the guy if I didn’t live in a city that already had its ducks in a row.
    But the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed a Republican who is not gay over the two Republicans in the race who are gay, completely disproves your unwarranted and classless attack. Before you start doing things like putting “Republican” in quotes in an attempt to question their loyalties…why don’t you go look at your own voter registration card for the last decade. Then tell us how much credibility you have when attacking the Log Cabin Republicans for not being Republican enough and attack Nathan for switching parties for the purpose of being relevant in an election.

  4. Last night at the LGBT debate, the moderator asked Dumanis and DeMaio: “If you’re gay, how can you be a Republican?” The question was asked in a condescending manner and got a huge round of applause and laughter from the audience, most notably Fletcher. The Log Cabin Republicans should have never endorsed him to begin with.

  5. Michael, I didn’t say the Log Cabin folks preferred gay CANDIDATES. I asserted that their primary concern is gay ISSUES. Indeed, while Carl is likely supportive of at least some gay issues, he does not WORK on gay issues.

    DeMaio’s priority is fiscal reform, Fletcher’s DEFINITELY is not. Fletcher’s priority is winning office — THEN he’ll figure out what he wants to do.

    And yes, I switched parties. To what political gain, I might ask? Did I subsequently run for office? Who is better qualified to talk about switching parties than a guy who has done just that?

    Tell me, Michael, did I first fundraise hundreds of thousands from my party’s biggest donors (admittedly THAT would have been quite a feat in the LP!) before switching two months before the election? Was I pleading for a party endorsement — extolling my party THREE WEEKS before switching?

    My my, Michael — such a nasty attack. You seem to be losing it.

  6. Questioning the ethics, loyalty, and thoughtfulness of a hard working group of brave Republicans must bring out the worst in me. Especially with how loyal they’ve been to the Republican Party despite having such an uphill battle and you being a Johnny-Come-Lately to the GOP, freely admitting that you only joined due to the passage of Prop 14. (Way to stick to your principles, Richard)

    But your “losing it” comment, Richard, would imply you think I have “it” (or had). That might be the nicest thing you’ve ever said to me, Richard. Thank you.

  7. Actually, Michael, I joined the GOP because (at least locally) it has evolved from a fiscally wussy organization into a pretty good champion of the taxpayer. For some time before my reregistration, I worked with the GOP on tax matters — even attended by invitation some internal meetings on taxpayer issues. I also joined SDCTA and the Lincoln Club long before I made the final switch to the GOP. It was an evolving change. And I said so publicly.

    Now, PLEASE cite where I “freely admitted that [I] only joined [the GOP] due to the passage of Prop 14.” Good luck finding that quote !!!! Or anything approaching it. (Maybe if you carefully edit an article I wrote down to a 4-6 word phrase — you might have some luck).

    Michael, it’s sad, when you stoop to simply making things up. Have you no limits?

    Moreover, what “principles” did I violate by switching parties? Did you hear my keynote speech at last spring’s GOP Central Committee meeting? I made clear that my positions on issues haven’t changed — that my role model is long time libertarian Republican Fred Schnaubelt. But my main concerns are fiscal matters — true then and true now.

    Of course, once I joined the GOP, I had to hide my position on sensitive issues that differed with the the GOP platform. Legalizing drugs, for instance.

    OOPS! My bad. Here’s my blog post from 2/20/2012 — where I wrote about the success Portugal had decriminalizing drugs. In that blog article is my personal essay “Richard Rider’s Thoughts on Drug Legalization” — listing 20 reasons to legalize drugs.
    http://open.salon.com/blog/richard_rider/2012/02/20/portugal_legalizes_drugs_–_drug_abuse_drops_50.

    It’s my contention that the GOP tent is now big enough for such dissenting opinions. Do you disagree?

    So again I ask you, Michael — what principles did I not stick to?

    And, since we are on the topic, do YOU have any principles — at all?

  8. I heard you talk about it in the speech you gave at the Republican meeting in Rancho Bernardo after you switched.

    And go back and read this (comments too): http://sdrostra.com/?p=16269

    Back peddle, justify, twist and turn…but trying to convince us that the timing of you becoming a Republican wasn’t due to Prop 14 is as believable as Nathan trying to convince us that leaving the Republican Party had nothing to do with the endorsement of Carl.

  9. Michael, BELIEVE what you will. But YOU read that post again. What I SAID speaks for itself

    I did NOT say that the only reason I switched was Prop 14. Or even that it was the PRIMARY reason. It was not.

    I DID describe the EFFECTS (the unintended consequences) of “top two” elections. Ya got me there. So?

    This change certainly was yet another reason to leave the LP, which I have talked about elsewhere. How does that paragraph translate into me joining the GOP “only due to Prop 14”? It doesn’t — not in English, anyway.

    I haven’t run as a Libertarian since 1994, though my party affiliation was frequently brought up by the press. I’ve held no elected position within the LP for over 15 years. Maybe 20. Can’t remember.

    And I made clear in this blog my positions and independence within the GOP. Unlike you, I call out RINO’s when I see ’em. Ask Brian Maienschein.

    One’s thing’s for sure — if I were a political opportunist with no principles seeking personal and economic gain, I’d have switched to the GOP decades ago. But I guess that point doesn’t play well with your assertion that I switched parties for some undefined selfish reason.

  10. This forum jumped the shark. Nothing left but a Dick Rider and Carl DeMaio love fest. Out.

  11. What forum are you reading? Where else can you find the level of discussion that’s on Rostra? Two Cathedrals? This forum seems to be what you make of it, including the ability for commenters to criticize those they disagree with, such as Rider and DeMaio if that’s the beef. But, go ahead and go home. But I bet the ball stays here with those willing to play instead of stomping off.

  12. Post
    Author

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.