Never one to let principle get in the way of ambition, Democrat Nathan Fletcher endorsed Democrat Carol Kim, a labor-backed candidate for San Diego City Council District 6.
Shouldn’t be a big deal, Democrat Nathan endorsing a Democrat candidate, right? But one of the other candidates in the race, Mitz Lee, who was once a Republican and is probably an Independent (just like Nathan was 3 months ago), but could be a Democrat (sure acts like one), was a Nathan for Mayor supporter and headed up his Asian outreach.
But if there’s one thing we know about Nathan, it’s not what you have done for him in the past that matters, its what you can do for him in the future.
Keeping it classy, Nathan, keeping it classy.
PS…in case you can’t figure out why…he’s courting labor for a fantasy run for mayor.
Comments 33
Nathan who?
This most be the most worthless endorsement possible. I’m sure people are just dying to be endorsed by Fletcher.
Add one more trait of Fletcher’s that give public officials a bad name:
Disloyalty.
Just another self-serving politician doing anything, and don’t underestimate the word ANYTHING, to get elected. I’m embarrassed for those that used to point to him as a shining political star. This man is obsessed with being president of the United States. Nothing less.
Kim held a leadership position for OFA, Organizing For America, a grassroots campign to re-elect President Obama.
Nice full flip flop Nathan.
Red Grant
Nathan could always say, “I was against Obama before I was for Obama.” Covers both ends of the spectrum and in between.
What do Bob Barr, Trent Lott, Elizabeth Dole, John Connally, Jessie Helms, Sam Yorty, Strom Thurmond, Condoleezza Rice, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Rick Perry and Ronald Reagan have in common? They were all registered Democrats who switched to join the Republican Party and I suppose, according to everyone on this blog, they also must be totally lacking in integrity.
Hypocrisy, are you on this blog? Are you then also speaking for yourself when you refer to everyone on this blog? Stupid question? A host of opinions get posted here. When you speak for yourself, please do so.
T.A.,
Point taken. I should have said “many on this blog” since there does seem to be a majority of those who posted on this topic claiming Fletcher has shown a lack of integrity by switching parties. I will endeavor not to “paint everyone with the same brush” in the future.
Thanks, HQ. We’re also guessing those with their panties in a twist over Nathan are the ones most inclined to comment on his integrity or lack of it.
HQ. You know darn well the reason people are criticizing Nathan. Don’t give us this whole, this people were once Democrats and became Republicans jive, in order to portray Fletcher “bashers” as hypocrites.
Nathan was the one campaigning for the SDGOP endorsement, claiming he was the “family” candidate, focusing on Mindy and their child. However, when he loses the nomination, to a gay man, he goes public, whining like a little girl with a skinned knee, complaining that he wasn’t endorsed because of his views on gays were too “liberal” for the SDGOP, and stating that his views hadn’t changed, just that the party had. Low and behold though, what does he do a few months later, but endorse Filner, the type of Democrat he spent the previous years and in fact, months railing against. Then after Filner’s victory, Fletcher registers as a Democrat .
So, if Mr. Integrity has always been honest, why is it that this man, a moderate-conservative as a Republican in the assembly, a conservative as he portrayed himself to the base, now a Democrat, endorsing left-wing liberal Democrats, not to mention endorsing them over candidates who are supposedly ideological aligned with what he claimed to be when he left the party, and why is it, he racked up a liberal voting record as a DTS.
This are the reason we’re criticizing him., and I hope it continues.
I find it ironic how many in the party are quick to condemn Mr Fletcher for abandoning his conservative principles. When they themselves are doing the same thing on social issues.
themarshallplan,
Facts matter:
1. Fletcher did not endorse Filner.
2. Fletcher never claimed he lost the endorsement of the Republican Party because his views on Gays were too liberal.
You have to stop making stuff up.
Fletcher joins a long list of prominent politicians, many of whom I am sure you idolize, who have switched political parties over the years. I really think you need to review that list I posted before you cast aspersions on Fletcher’s character.
AAAHHHHHH, let’s see!
Mark Twain
Peter Lassen junior high school
Hiram Johnson High School
Going to be a CPA?
worked in Country Club Mall
need I go on?
So r u who u should be? or is this a son?
“If I was mayor, I would absolutely try to find some way to keep him involved,” Fletcher said.
http://voiceofsandiego.org/2012/05/22/filner-fletcher-break-bread-together/
JBug:
“need I go on?,” you ask.
No, please don’t, not unless you either stop writing cryptically, or let us know you’re not on crack or a spammer.
Should we go on?
“If I was mayor, I would absolutely try to find some way to keep him involved,” Fletcher said.
And yet Fletcher never endorsed Filner for Mayor despite your claim that he did.
Not my claim, Hypocrisy.
Michael,
Good point. That themarshallplan who said that. My apologies.
Nathan fails the test on his own lack of merits. No need to point out his ties to Filner. And no need for Nathan to have formally endorsed Filner to have ties.
I don’t think it is about switching parties once. I think it is about switching and switching. Most of the time it is done once for demographic or gerrymandering issues.
Ronald Reagan was a D until he was 52 years old. I am glad he saw the light.
One would have to ask, what was the stop in the middle all about, if not for opportunism?
I doubt that, three weeks before leaving the Democratic Party, Reagan (or just about any other luminary who switched political parties in either direction) was speaking to his party’s leadership, extolling his lifelong, steadfast support of the party and pledging his fealty to said group in the future.
THAT’s what made Fletcher appear to be the crass opportunist he is. And it proved him to be TOTALLY untrustworthy.
Richard,
You could easily come up with a dozen examples of politicians who asked voters to make them their Party’s nominee and when failing to win that Primary switched to Independent so they could run in the General Election.
Richard, Hypocrisy is right.
People don’t dislike Nathan because he left the Republican Party. They dislike him because Nathan bashed people who he used to call friends and it was only for his own political gain. They dislike him because he wasn’t even honest about what he believed and told people what they wanted to hear. They dislike him because he bashed on Carl Demaio in a public statement, not on Carl’s policy proposals, but with personal attacks like telling Carl to “man up”, a thinly veiled shot at Carl for being gay. They dislike him because he tried hard to play the political game in the Republican Party, he got smoked out by many who saw right through him, and then accused everyone else for his failures.
It’s Nathan’s insincerity and lack of integrity that made many dislike him. Not his party affiliation or lack of party affiliation.
Thanks for making sure that point is clear, Hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy, to start with, your example is not apples to apples. Fletcher didn’t change registration so he could [legally] run in the runoff general election. He switched in the primary because the GOP county central committee endorsed the better candidate (a decision which, in hindsight, was incredibly clairvoyant) — after Fletcher eagerly sought the GOP endorsement with false, cynical statements of loyalty. It was a nonpartisan race, so switching parties or registering “independent” had nothing to do with ballot access.
If he had switched at the beginning of the race, Fletcher would have been perceived to be holding the moral high ground. He didn’t, so he wasn’t. And rightly so.
Richard,
I happen to think asking the Party’s voters for support and then deserting them is more troubling than asking the Party’s “leaders” for support before making the switch.
Also, I am not sure why you think the endorsement of DeMaio was “clairvoyant.” If DeMaio wasn’t in the race, we would have elected a Republican Mayor.
Hypocrisy, maybe true, but “our” mayor would have been the biggest RINO Republican yet seen in these here parts. And that’s saying something!
As Fletcher has demonstrated, he would have supported PLA agreements, living wage, city worker pay increases — and then you Dems could claim (with some justification) that is was a “Republican” mayor who did it!
No thanks. I’d rather have a properly designated Democrat in the office than some pretend Republican voting for the Democrat agenda (“reluctantly” — and with a frowny face, no doubt).
Hypocrisy, Fletcher out-and-out LIED to the GOP just before switching. I realize that doesn’t bother you in the least, but it sure bothers me.
As a Central Committee member, I was in the meeting when Carl was endorsed over Nathan and Bonnie. While it is human nature for a person to follow his best self interest, and usually understandable when it happens, it is reprehensible to outright betray your friends and party. As with Richard, It bothered me a lot. Fletcher proved by his actions that Carl was by far the better man. Carl would have been a great San Diego Mayor.
Richard,
Actually I think Dumanis would have won the election.
If. If. If. Yawn. If any of the candidates had not been in the race, other candidates may have entered and thus momentum and segments of support may have gone in different directions. Not one person can tell us now the outcome in any “if” situation.
If the Filner stuff had come out earlier and/or the folks with knowledge had spoken up, maybe a different Democrat would have gotten in. Who? I don’t know, which means I also don’t know the iffy outcome of such an if.
Heck, if one of the parents of one of the candidates hadn’t met, maybe the mayor now would be someone we’ve never even heard of.
Iffin’ eh.
Barry,
Point taken so back to my original point which was simply that changing political parties doesn’t somehow equate to a lack of integrity or principle.
Richard
“No thanks. I’d rather have a properly designated Democrat in the office than some pretend Republican voting for the Democrat agenda (reluctantly–and with a frowny face, no doubt).
Excellent expression of problem causing some voters to sit out an election choice when it is between Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B. That of course is Nirvana for Hypo Q.