One significant fact omitted concerning Nathan Fletcher’s military service bio. Oversight??

Richard Rider, Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters Richard Rider, Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters 7 Comments

Share

San Diego Mayoral candidate Nathan Fletcher served honorably in the military. Of that there is no doubt.  He deserves full credit for his military service.

But what I find interesting is that his published bios seldom if ever mention his military rate or rank.  If you read his Wikipedia bio (doubtless controlled by Nathan’s campaign handlers — the whole piece reads like a campaign ad), it discusses his military schools and accomplishments, but never mentions his rate or rank – a rather fundamental aspect of one’s military experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Fletcher

Similarly his near-identical write-up on his mayoral candidacy website omits the same info.

http://www.nathanfletcher.com/about-nathan/

I think most people unfamiliar with Nathan Fletcher will ASSUME from the write-up that he was an officer with some significant responsibilities and managerial experience. But in reality he was a sergeant with relatively limited managerial requirements.

Now don’t get me wrong.  Sergeants and petty officers are the backbone of the military, as far as I’m concerned. Over many years I was proud to serve with many that were great soldiers and sailors.  FULL DISCLOSURE — I was active duty only 4 years in my navy career — the rest in the reserves.

Of course, rabid Nathan Fletcher supporters will feign indignity over my observation — somehow concluding that I’m in some way impugning sergeants and their key contributions to our military.  But if being a sergeant is so honorable (which it most definitely is), why does the Fletcher campaign consciously and consistently omit this fundamental aspect of his military service?

To me, the answer is obvious.  Nathan Fletcher and his handlers aren’t keen on revealing his actual military rank — letting the readers of his bio infer whatever they want.  This consistent omission likely leads uninformed readers (most readers are not political junkies) to conclude that he was an officer with greater responsibilities than he actually was tasked with.

A clever ploy, but somewhat less than forthcoming.

Share

Comments 7

  1. Being a Sergeant is no picnic, at least in the Corps. Lance Corporals may beg to differ. You delegate, have responsibility for Marines and equipment. In some circumstances you may be the decision maker on the ground.

    None of those things really translate to running a city. The fortitude and resilience maybe, the spirit of strength and “can do”. But not mechanically.

    A city doesn’t work like the military. The concept of absolute authority isn’t quite there. In the military you order, in civil service or public sector you ask, sometimes firmly, and then still have to politic to get people to do what they are supposed to. Also, Sergeant to Mayor doesn’t scale easily, like being a Sergeant wouldn’t adequately prep you for doing a Colonel’s job.

    If all other things are equal being a Marine Sergeant is certainly better than being some greasy mouth-breather. I don’t know if being a Marine Sergeant or any other service’s NCO rank (PO2,SGT,SSGT) really entails the job skills that translate to Mayor.

    Then again, I don’t know that being a lifelong political operative suckling on the government teat does either.

    Jerry Sanders going from Police Chief to Mayor was probably the most appropriately skilled person to assume the reigns as San Diego’s Mayor in a long time. There is a long line of former judges and council people who were abysmal. Some so bad they didn’t serve a full term.

  2. I believe he was a Staff Sergeant. Even when Richard Rider is belittling his rank, he can’t get it right.

  3. Post
    Author

    Sorry, voltaire, he IS a sergeant. just like a chief petty officer is a chief petty officer, be he an E-7, E-8 (Senior CPO), or E-9 (Master CPO). I did NOT belittle his enlisted status — he hid it.

    Moreover, I posted this story earlier on Facebook, and pointed out that he is indeed an E-6, a Staff Sergeant — the same rank as a Petty Officer 1st Class. No disrespect was implied on my part, but nice try on your part. A little pathetic, but thanks for playing. Next time, be REALLY brave, and use your real name.

    Here’s the thing: If being a Staff Sergeant is something to be proud of (and I most definitely think it is), why is Fletcher so reticent about putting it in his bio’s? Note the plural — this was not some one-time unintentional omission. It’s a systematic policy on Fletcher’s part (actually probably Fletcher’s consultants).

  4. I have to confess, I was going to put my rank up, but Sgt. Slaughter called me personally and said not to post my rank out of respect for Sergeants across America. Something about changing my policies every election and not listening to people (not sure as I wasn’t really paying attention).

    Oh and Voltaire… thanks for rushing to my defense like a good boy. I’m confused though, where did Richard Ryder belittle my rank? (no, I’m spelling his name right, Richard just spells his name wrong!).

    The Chargers are looking almost as good as me if I were ruling the City of San Diego! 😉

  5. Mr. Rider’s article actually highlights something even more revealing to much of the Democratic base; I am certain it isn’t that “Sergeants” aren’t responsible or worthy of this or that….I believe many of the La Jolla, Urbane, Hillcrest Dems would think less of Fletcher because he was a “lowly” enlisted man. As crass as that sounds, it is ostensibly true they would believe that.

    Those of us that have served in the military know, as Mr. Rider adroitly points out, that NCOs are the “soul” of a military unit. I am often stunned at the complete naivety of many on the left, simply because many of them either have little to no first hand knowledge of military protocol, organization, or experience, or what little they might, they get from Hollywood, and its depictions of the enlisted man in such “classics” as “A Few Good Men, ” Platoon”, “Born on the Fourth of July, ” and other big screen indictments to military service, sacrifice, and commitment. Or the constant bombarding of CNN-esque reporting on the plights and tribulations of the “emotionally and psychologically scared” soldier coping with PTSD, beating his family, hooked on drugs, etc…

    Most Dems I have encountered, especially the “hip, urbane, metro-sexual types” see military service as a “failure” to what would otherwise be a “successful” career path..trust fund stuff like perpetual student, community organizer, college professor, liberal politician, environmentalist, Obama Care navigator, White House Staffer, Liberal Judge Law Clerk, or MTV rapper.

    Name a enlisted vet staffer for one Democratic congressman, or on Scot tPeter’s staff, or in Governor Browns Cabinet of immediate staff…are their any?

    (OBTW, Kirk Jorgensen has them…smart, capable, savvy, and driven too)

    I strongly believe Fletcher’s campaign has minimized Fletcher’s rank and hidden his true sphere of responsibility because the very narrative and crafted propaganda from the left doesn’t coincide with the propaganda of “libs” being smarter than everyone else. The vast majority of enlisted personnel have not completed a four-year degree …mainly, because for military service, they don’t need to.(for many officers and vets, “intelligence” does not equal “education”…libs, do not see it that way) The military will teach them their rate responsibilities (yet provides some of the most attractive options for college through the GI Bill).

    Dems are much more “class” conscience than their perceived conservative “rubes.” …and Dem strategists, slick branding types, and Fletcher’s handlers know this all too well.

  6. after reading Richard Rider’s article, my 2 encounters with Nathan Fletcher now make sense.

    BTW- full disclosure – I served 3 1/2 years in the Army and was promoted to E-5 (Specialist).

    I want to let you know where Fletcher stands on the important issues – ie our constitution.
    I have to conclude that Fletcher would not know a constitutional bill if you handed it to him. I did. ……
    after the mayor’s debate in 2012 I confronted then-State Assembly Nathan Fletcher in the lobby.
    i told him that one of the most important things in a Mayor was to uphold the oath of office (which he took in the military and the state assembly)
    I said that a lot of people are concerned about our runaway centralized tyrannical federal government.
    The piece of legislation called The Balance of Powers Act that I gave him a couple of months earlier was to stop that at the state level. I assumed that bill was ’round-filed’ since I never got a response.
    He said –
    I looked it over and concluded it was unconstitutional.
    Strange, since state legislators in 34 other states thought this bill was and sponsored it..
    So far, this ‘unconstitutional’ bill has passed in Tennesse and 3 other states, the other 30 following close behind.)
    So be forewarned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *