Updated…
U-T San Diego: Fletcher vs. Fletcher vs. Fletcher
http://web.utsandiego.com/
_____
Posted September 20, 2013 @10:11 am…
Email from Tony Krvaric, posted with permission…
Happy Friday!
Yesterday I mentioned rumors that Nathan Fletcher has now officially haven taken positions AGAINST pension reform and managed competition and IN FAVOR of Project Labor Agreements and “card check,” i.e. forced unionization.
Turns out these positions were taken when Fletcher was trying to get the Labor Council endorsement a week or so ago. Moments after my email yesterday, “A Friend” sent me the questionnaire and I wanted you to be the first to see it for yourself.
I took the liberty of writing a memo to accompany the questionnaire to highlight exactly how severely his positions have changed in just 18 months. It’s incredible. Pathetic, really.
NO Republican or business person should be supporting this man. Ever. For anything.
And yes, you may absolutely forward this email and link to others.
Have a great weekend. I will continue to keep you posted on the latest developments.
Best,
Tony Krvaric
CHAIRMAN (volunteer)
Republican Party of San Diego County
Croatian by blood, Swedish by birth, American by choice
P.S. Congratulations to the Lincoln Club on their 30th Anniversary. What an amazing business organization. Also congrats to Vince Mudd and Susie Baumann who received Businessman and Businesswoman of the Year Awards, respectively, at last night’s anniversary dinner.
Comments 16
Clearly, Fletcher was hoping to keep his answers to the labor questionnaire private so that he could take less extreme positions in the campaign. That is not going to happen now!
There is an incredible amount of material for attack ads here.
Hope Faulconer does not focus on Fletcher so much that he forgets Alvarez. If Fletcher implodes early, Alvarez will get all of the labor support.
So, I’m digging Thor’s Post of the Chairman’s analysis and refuting of Nathan Fletcher. It is a sound and powerful rebutting of Mr. Fletcher’s metamorphosis over the last eighteen months.
It is remarkable to see a once self-proclaimed Republican turn a complete 180 dgrs from his previously held convictions as defined and articulated by the Republican Party. The Chairman aptly points out the complete hypocrisy and apparent tactless flip-flopping and retreat from were formerly articulated, foundational, and key political and philosophical pillars of Mr. Fletcher’s once conservative, Republican, and “pro-business” stances.
“I took the liberty of writing a memo to accompany the questionnaire to highlight exactly how severely his positions have changed in just 18 months. It’s incredible. Pathetic, really.”
The Chairman of the Republican Party of San Diego continues,
“NO Republican or business person should be supporting this man. Ever. For anything.”
I could NOT agree more with the Chairman of the Republican Party of San Diego County. “Here, here!” Hurumphs and back-slapping all around!
Just to make sure I wasn’t missing the salient point being made by the Chairman, I referenced the California Republican Party Platform…just to make sure what in fact was being alleged was in fact true. Sure enough, it was. It reads;
“We support the elimination of regulatory barriers and subsidies where possible on the businesses and workers of California. We support right-to-work laws and reject mandatory closed union shops where workers are forced to join unions against their will. We also reject union workers being forced to make political contributions to candidates or causes that they oppose.”
Regrettably, it appears the Chairman, and others within the Republican Party, wealthy donors, endorsing politicians, and others, while rightly pointing out Mr. Fletcher’s hypocrisy and flip-flopping, have not applied the same level of scrutiny and analysis to their own recent and clear changes in key aspects of the exact same Platform;
On Family:
“The California Republican Party affirms the family as the natural and indispensable institution for human development.”
It continues;
“We support the two parent family as the best environment for raising children, and therefore believe that it is important to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. We believe public policy and education should not be exploited to present or teach homosexuality as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle. We oppose same-sex partner benefits, child custody, and adoption.”
THE RIGHT TO LIFE:
“The California Republican Party is the party that protects innocent life because we believe life begins at conception and ends at natural death.
The precept continues;
“We support laws that protect unborn children from partial birth, sex selection, and tax-payer funded abortions, and abortions performed as a form of birth control or on minor girls without their parent’s notification and consent. We believe that the question of abortion is a matter that should be left to the people through their elected representatives, not usurped by the United States Supreme Court, and believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be reversed. We support adoption as an alternative to abortion and call on lawmakers to reduce the bureaucratic burden placed on adoptive couples.”
This is anything but inane. We have seen a flurry of surprising endorsements over the last several days from formerly conservative politicians. Some on this site have been critical of those that have pointed out the apparent “flip-flop” and fundamental shift in formerly recognized and articulated Republican stances…like the one Mr. Fletcher has reversed and is now advocating the exact opposite. These endorsements have come in the form of the RPSDC endorsing Mr. Faulconer for mayor. He opposed the second platform precept outright when he voted as a City Council Member to oppose Prop 8 and all of its Republican supporters.
Carl DeMaio has received the preponderance of most surprising endorsements of late; Tom McClintock, Kevin McCarthy, and a strong message of support from Darrell Issa for a big fundraising event in Wash DC in coming weeks. Mr. DeMaio has opposed, and recently been critical through his New Generation “manifesto”, of these Republican precepts that, like Mr. Fletcher’s stance, appear to be diametrically opposed to existing Republican platform tenants.
Here is a link to the California Republican Party Platform. http://www.cagop.org/pdf/platform.pdf
Perhaps the Chairman, and others who have openly endorsed Mr. Faulconer and those endorsing and advocating for Mr. DeMaio, can clarify for tens-of-thousands of Republicans in SDC the precise difference in the changes in stances with Mr. Fletcher, as despicable and as crass as they are, to the apparent changes in stances by Republican politicians, leadership, and donors in the aforementioned CRP Platform tenants as now articulated by Republican candidates; namely Mr. Faulconer, and Mr. DeMaio.
Often we hear those in key positions quote Ronald Reagan on the need to adhere to what is euphemistically referred to as the 11th commandment; “Thou Shalt not Speak ill of fellow Republicans”. In regards to Mr. Fletcher, no foul there. However, what is happening when Republican Leadership, high-profile endorsing politicians and big-name donors and organizations are clearly making statements and taking affirmed and concrete action against the very Party Platform and thousands of their “fellow Republicans” while they condemn a moral and ethical lecher of a man who has done the very same thing? (Fletcher The Lecher)
How in particular will that be interpreted by the opposition in the coming months, a hostile and often misleading media against Republicans, and the current Republican voters in SDC?
What a tangle web we weave…..
Ya gotta love verbose “leaderless” and his pathetic attempt to deflect Fletcher’s awesome Olympic- quality flip-flops — while pretending he agrees with Krvaric’s expose’. As is his tendency, leaderless is comparing apples with Appaloosas.
But, to play his game. A political party is not a religion. One doesn’t get excommunicated for disagreeing with some positions in the platform.
We (like the Democrats) don’t administer a purity test in picking candidates. All positions matter, but few positions are free-standing “deal breakers,” at least not for most of us.
Most of us consider the overall positions the candidate represents — weighting those positions as to the importance to us (this varies from one person to another). Again, this decision-making process is the norm for voters in general and Democrats in particular.
We also consider the likelihood of the candidate winning a contestable election. For instance, a GOP candidate in the East County will likely be pro life — while on the coast, some version of pro choice is the more likely GOP standard-bearer.
As a long-time philosophical libertarian, I’ don’t agreed with all the positions of the GOP, and am never shy about saying so. Yet there’s room in the GOP for libertarian Republicans as well as social conservative Republicans.
But what I DON’T do (and won’t tolerate in a candidate) is flip-flop on my beliefs to match the audience or ally from which I’m trying to glean support. Fletcher does this — over and over — in so acrobatic a fashion as to be breathtaking.
But leaderless did get one thing right — he weaves tangled webs. And manages to entrap himself in the middle.
Richard, it’s great to have pro liberty thinkers active in the local GOP. We need much, much more of that, and we need the leadership to listen. Keep doing what you do.
There he is…speaking of attack dogs…Libertarians….now there is a force to be reckoned with… All less than 3% of you. You have to pimp yourselves out to whatever losers will tolerate you, and prostitue yourselves in whatever politcal whoreshouse will take you. How noble. I think you have found your match….The New Generation Party.
Not purity…conviction. That is a tough concept for thise that have none. You wouldn’t know conviction unless you could write iit off in a tax break. What a legacy…
Seems I hit “leaderless” in a vital spot. See spot bleed. And bleat.
Damn straight libertarians are a force, most of the country has strong libertarian tendencies when surveyed. Please explain how a San Diego Mayor impacts abortion policy? Bully pulpit is about the only marginal argument and the last time I remember a SD mayor getting national attention before the filthy Filner fiasco was when a South Park episode featured Sanders in a musical number about a crazy naked charity CEO. Do you people even realize the state you are living in??? When will you wake up and realize that if Republicans cannot logically embrace competitive moderate candidates you will end up alone with your convictions without the singular thing that counts in politics POWER !?! You and your convictions can make a happy life for yourself paying ridiculous taxes, sending your kids to crap schools, and wading through a sea of liberal imposed bureaucracy and regulation…or maybe republicans can start acting with rational self interest, the way the dems have for years, and realize that you can be a principled spectator, ignorantly calling for officials, with no capacity to impact social policy, to be conservative purists…they will lose… and then watch your state and local government being run by Marxist spend thrift nannies. The question we should have for our candidates is can you win and can you get me some of things conservatives value that are possible within your realm of power? In California those things are realistically limited to the preservation of liberty and fiscal constraint. Wake up and smell the Quinoa, this ain’t Texas. Rationality and realism will save the Republican party. And one more damn thing since I am on a roll, I am so tired of feeling like I have to button my lip because my political opinion does not fit some utopian mold, whether it be my crazy liberal professors, or my so-called fellow party members. Why should I not be allowed to passionately participate in political discourse? I am a rational social MODERATE, strong fiscal conservative, and a good dose of libertarian with hawkish tendencies. I pick Republican and I vote, dammit. Hear me ROAR.
“That is a tough concept for thise that have none”
You know nothing about libertariansim. It is perhaps, the most moral philosophical and economic ideology because it represents equality, the rule of law, and the very foundation which built the greatest prosperity, for the most amount of people, with the maximum amount of personal liberty, in the history of Mankind.
I’m happy to explain why if your intellectual curiosity permits such a thing
Mr. Rider (if that is in fact your real name.. 🙂
Your petty attempt to try to make this a playground “your momma” burn session says volumes about just how close to home the original piece hits. But libertarians “roar”….roar all the way to continual political irrelevancy. Please continue with your narrow minuscule fiscal concerns and innocuous diatribes about liberty and freedom, while you snuggle up to your new morally ambiguous New Generation partners.
Conservatives are watching (reading, to be technically accurate).. Lots and lots of conservatives are watching. They see this neo-progressive malignancy infiltrating into the once respected Republican party much clearer now.
And they have you to thank for that … And your predictable attack dog comrades.
Oh – as indicated in your above comment, I guess we add misogyny to the noble list of libertarian traits … You just assume Leaderless is in fact a man…what a dinosaur.
“… the most moral philosophical and economic ideology…”
I will stipulate the economic piece. However, it is intellectually fabricated to say the “moral philosophy” is a contributing factor to “libertarianism” when you, and all your “supporters” are making the argument that the very moral fiber woven into that “greatest prosperity” in the history of mankind was NOT a function of the very Judeo-Christian moral construct which both the Life and Marriage issues exemplify.
I guess your prosperity begins where the “life and liberty” of millions of unborn children ends…or the deconstruction of the moral building block of civil and moral societies for centuries in the from of the Family as prescribed in the aforementioned Platform of the once-respected Republican party.
“Reason and Rationality”…the very hyper-secular foundations of progressive-Hegalian political thought…the genesis of both Bolshevism and National Socialism…so the moral aspect is key…we can at least agree on that.
Tony Krvaric’s political party is an entity that has accepted Ronald Reagan, Ray Haynes, Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia, and, most recently, Democratic Congressman Art Davis after they abandoned their previous Democratic roots.
It’s not surprising Nathan Fletcher has evolved. He switched parties and did so publicly. Why is it surprising that he now believes tenets of his new party?
Chairman Krvaric is a leader in a party that itself embraces party-switchers.
“when you, and all your “supporters” are making the argument that the very moral fiber woven into that “greatest prosperity” in the history of mankind was NOT a function of the very Judeo-Christian moral construct which both the Life and Marriage issues exemplify.”
I don’t make that argument. Of COURSE our religious construct helped to create that prosperity but the Bible wasn’t the document which formed government– the constitution is.
We can have that circular argument again but I want churches to thrive and have the influence they once had again. We’re not going to return there if we don’t start limiting the size and scope of government.
Leah,
Keep ROARING!!! You are the epitome of why people refer to the Republican Party as the STUPID PARTY.
San Diego Truth,
Don’t forget about Rick Perry.
San Diego Truth,
The best instructional example of how badly Tony K handled the Fletcher situation comes from the U.S. Senate.
In her most recent election, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican Primary meaning that the Republican voters, not just the Republican Central Committee, said she wasn’t their choice.
Believing that she was still the favorite of most Alaskan voters, she changed her Republican registration, ran as an independent and won the General Election.
The Republicans in the Senate could have done what Tony K did to Fletcher, but they didn’t. They welcomed her and today she caucuses with the Republicans.
SanDiegoTruth –
In regards to political affiliations, should not the belie in particular ideas lead one to a specific party, not the affiliation with a political party leading to a particular viewpoint.