Scott Peters looking for votes in all the wrong places

Elliot Schroeder Elliot Schroeder 50 Comments


You know things are tight in the CA-52 race when Scott Peters is trying to get my vote. I’ve been registered GOP since 18 and since I got off of active duty (too much overseas time) I know I voted in every election. Election campaigns usually focus on Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts of their political base, so I know I can’t be showing up on Peters’ rolls. But the other night I get a call to be on a teleconference with Peters and got the email below. These actions may be indicators that Peters’ Democratic base can’t be relied on to carry the election. If he is going for a 100% show-up, registered GOP voter it’s easy to surmise that his campaign is unsure of the independent vote as well. So it looks like he’s reaching out to any voters he can.

Things are moving pretty fast around here.

But, there’s one thing we know for sure: Carl DeMaio’s divisive agenda is wrong for San Diego. Scott Peters’ commitment, consistency and independence are just what San Diegans need and deserve from their Congressman.

That’s why we’re determined to build Scott the strongest people-powered campaign San Diego has ever seen. But to do that, we need to know one thing: are you in?

Elliot, click here to automatically sign your name and help Scott reach 10,000 strong from San Diego and beyond standing behind him in 2014 >>

If you want to help Scott fight for commonsense solutions, add your name right now and say you’re in for his 2014 campaign against Carl DeMaio.

Go on — say you’re in:

Thanks for joining us,

San Diego for Scott

Elliot Schroeder is Vice-Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of San Diego.


Comments 50

  1. It’s amazing these ads actually work. I would ask:

    1- How is DeMaio’s agenda “divisive”?
    2- Prove your “independence” with your voting record.

    Consultants know however that, if you repeat the buzzwords often enough, they stick

  2. People should vote against Peters just based on his lack of an Oxford comma. That alone should ensure a DeMaio win.

  3. Few Democrats are more slavishly devoted to the public employee labor unions than Scott Peters.

    Then there’s his continuing dishonest campaign about women making 75% what men do (a “war on women” he claims) — a thoroughly discredited assertion still made by the left.

    Hence his union fealty is exceeded only by his patent dishonesty (a continuation of his performance as a San Diego city councilman).

  4. Post

    Yeah, Peters definitely throws out an attractive word and hopes the voter will fill in the blanks and side with him.

  5. “Peters definitely throws out an attractive word and hopes the voter will fill in the blanks and side with him.”

    As does every other politician.

  6. Post

    Got this email where Peters claims his polls show a 5% lead:

    Elliot — I wanted to make sure you saw this:

    A brand new poll of our race shows us running ahead of Carl DeMaio by 5 points! That’s a big deal, and it proves your support is paying off.

    But, we can’t rest on our laurels, Elliot. We’re sitting just 0.1% outside the margin of error.

    So let me be clear: we’re still running in a pure toss-up.

    We know this poll sent DeMaio and his backers scrambling to raise and spend more money.

    Our team’s convinced DeMaio and his Tea Party and Koch Brother allies are about to pour even more cash on the San Diego airwaves to try and re-make Carl’s divisive record.

    Will you chip in a few dollars to fight back? I could really use your help today, Elliot.

    Thanks for always having my back,



  7. The poll is among likely voters, and guess what? Democrats aren’t likely voters this upcoming midterm. The poll is feel-good material for an ineffective congressman.

  8. Peters saw the CA 52nd primary election results just like everyone else did. He realizes there is a huge and widening gap within the Republican ranks between the mocked and scorned conservatives and the heavily entrenched and invested GOP Establishment hacks & backers. Peters may be a Dem, he may be controversial, and he may be wrong on issues for Republicans and every front; but he is a shrewd pol who didn’t let the GOP elation overtake his grasp on the cold hard math.

    Why would Peters’ look in “all the wrong places?”

    Jorgensen received over 20K votes and nearly 20 percent of the total vote that night (give or take 1K votes and a percentage point). A wake up call by any measure (and a far cry from the grey beard prognosticators here ranting he wouldn’t even get double digits…)

    By any reasonable standard, Jorgensen had a remarkable result given he was campaigning in hostile territory and was virtually shunned by most of the powerful GOP-establishment power brokers and media in SDC. His campaign was squeezed in that, unlike his CA 53rd counterpart, it was rushed to a primary vote prematurely months in advance to better facilitate DeMaio’s fundraising and quelling of Jorgensen’s ability to gain name recognition.

    …and he still bagged 20K/20%…

    GOP Achilles’ Heel- Because the Establishment GOP apparatuses both locally and nationally have gone to unprecedented lengths to thwart conservative challengers and displayed a complete disdain and contempt for conservative voices, Peters has two significant angles and advantages going into NOV; 1) attracting/persuading those conservatives that won’t vote for DeMaio because he is the marked and supported GOP Establishment hack, or, worse, 2) attracting/persuading those that will vote for Peters so they can reconstitute a more competitive Republican candidate in 16′. The idea here…two more years of a feckless Peters is considerably better than a potential lock in perpetuity by a candidate with the character displayed and well known history of Carl DeMaio.

    If Peters gets just a small slice of that Jorgensen pie, it’s a game changer in November. Both sides know it, and Peters is seeking to exploit it.

    And it’s humble pie for the GOP establishment.

  9. FF:

    1-Kirk Jorgensen did a remarkable job with his 20%

    2- 70^ of the people who voted for Jorgensen signaled that they will vote for DeMaio.

    3- I understand the desire for social conservatives to abstain from voting in the 52nd out of principle but there is no principle behind a vote for Peters. If 1000 people do that, I’ll be shocked.

    4- I don’t know if DeMaio wins by 7 points (as the early polls suggest) but he’ll beat Peters by a larger margin than Peters defeated Bilbray

  10. BB,

    That’s still 6K (30% of 20K)..and not to mention it was near record low turnout (especially for Dems)…if half of the 6K commit, that’s at least 3K that not only don’t show for CD but add to the Peters column. (a 6K+ swing..that’s real votes) plus an energized Dem base that may not have shown in the primary. Add in steady drip-srip of Dem Impeachment rhetoric, War on Women, threats to Obama legacy, blah, blah, its a much different race.

    Couple this with DeMaio will not have the luxury of GOP controlled atmospherics in the general to hide, bob, and weave from Peters like he did Jorgensen. At some point, he will have to surface and face the music; significant plagarism charges on his lone piston “Reform Now” platform ( Sen John Walsh recent revelations only regurgitate Carl’s pesky, unanswered albatross), a slew of past comments and claims either unsubstantiated or completely fabricated that not even Roger Hedgecock, Papa Doug, or TK can protect him from. The DeMaio optics are lousy, and the Peters folks know this…and will commence the bombing sorties day and night with the “never ending gobstopper” of relentless commercials, national media, and DCCC and DNC cover fire. No desperate, staged “Reichstag” style HQs break ins or petty lawn sign indimidation antics will stop that.

    The GOP has made strategic decisions nation-wide that have betrayed millions of fellow Republicans…and the chickens are coming home to roost. DeMaio, whether true or otherwise, is perceived as an Establishment hack. From Cantor to Kingston, Cochran to the 3 Mics (McCain, McConnell, and McCarthy) conservatives Republicans are now a great deal more aware than the Establishment is either willing or able to acknowledge. Either way, the GOP underestimates these betrayed Republicans at their peril. They clearly underestimated Jorgensen, even as the local Establishment stakeholders went to great lengths to marginalize him, he had none of the sheer volume, funding or capacity Peters will bring to this fight. The “But we beat Alvarez” strategic delusion lingering amidst Estabs from the mayoral race is but a soothing placebo to the smack down Peters will bring to bear.

    Tick tock…it will be interesting.

  11. Founding Father — SOOOO, your “theory” is that DeMaio staged the break-in??? Oh my. Why?????

    He was going to EASILY make the runoff. Why stage that break-in when the outcome was not in doubt? Would he not wisely save that desperate strategy for the general?

    Your hatred of DeMaio blinds your reasoning. Not to mention that you stoop to making things up without facts in evidence (the claimed staged break in). You are WISE to post anonymously. SO embarrassing to hear a Republican making such baseless claims.

    Watch out for ‘dem chem trails!!!! And black helicopters. And gays — they’re everywhere!

    Or is it possible you’re really a DEMOCRAT playing a role here?

  12. Again with the charged personal ad hominem attacks…homophobe (zzzzz)…and a new libel added to your quiver of disinformation….Democrat…now that’s rich. (delusional, but rich!) I clearly hit a nerve…but with you, it’s like clubbing baby seals.

    This only adds to your reservoir of credibility, Richard. Of course, this comes from the man that:

    1) Was so convinced Jorgensen wouldn’t get more than a single digit result, and was SO adamant nowhere near 10K in the 52nd would consider him…you were partially right…it was closer to 25K…well done…you should do political consulting;

    2) The guy who was played the complete fool, having your name and email used to deceive DeMaio constituents by the very guy you’re “all in” for Congress…such GOP Establishment loyalty…then again, you appear slow, (or just corrupt);

    3) Is so self-absorbed thinking any and all posts here somehow have anything to do with you…I suggest you find a hobby…whittling, horse shoes…something mindless;

    4) The dimmest bulb in Rostra drawer because I have shared my bona fides with many people who know us both…Perhaps it’s you heading the “DeMaio Break In” case…God help us…no wonder there aren’t any leads…Try Occam’s Razor…but be careful, you’re going to have to read, and there are some big words..…’s%20razor Hint- It will point you to the conclusion you don’t want to believe…

    Someday, perhaps you can cobble the courage to personally call me a homophobe, Richard …I won’t hold my breath…but, a guy can dream… Please…introduce yourself…We could learn a little more about each other.

    I’d really like that.

  13. I suspect that Mr. Jorgensen himself isn’t as one track minded as FF, as will be making a rational, reasoned vote for Carl in November. Everyone recognizes he accomplished a significant showing against Peters and DeMaio. Now we’ve moved on and are ready to send Carl to Washington.

    While Congressman DeMaio is in Washington voting against further mandates, regulations, and taxes, FF can stay at home knowing he did nothing to help us get Carl there.

  14. “Your hatred of DeMaio blinds your reasoning. Not to mention that you stoop to making things up without facts in evidence (the claimed staged break in).

    More “stooping…”

    And this, from the rapidly homophobic hate-filled folks in the local gay media…

    I was going to post the link to the results of the exhaustive HQs break in investigation, tirelessly tracking down those 9:00pm “plumbers” know, the ones that said..”Hey, it’s 9:00pm on a weekday…..lets break into the political HQs of a low level politico for no apparent reason…” Probably because its those “old white men…” They prefer to do their political intimidation operations before Matlock comes on…

    Alas…nothing to report.

    Richard; You are either incredibly dim, foolishly ignorant, or maliciously aligned with a very flawed character who will be as disastrous for San Diego as Filner.

    Perhaps you’re the imposter…

  15. While you guys are having fun posting barbs at each other, one thing is clear: No evidence, no innuendo. Make it so. Or we can.

  16. TA…you mean no evidence and innuendo like this?

    “I’m convinced that conservative Republicans’ [have a ] very real social intolerance…” Richard Rider.

    I get the whole indignant, “Fair Play” gig…But at least there needs to be a modicum of consistency. The true intolerance that emanates from this site is the continued and unchecked ad hominem attacks from Rider et al on me and others SOLELY based on our support of traditional marriage. It is Rider and his sycophants that purposely conflate the criticism of DeMaio “the political candidate” conveniently in the guise of “homophobia.” Its the same tactic detractors of the President used to anytime there was criticism and opposition to Pres Obama.

    I stand by my criticism of DeMaio…I have said this before, and I will reiterate it isn’t DeMaio’s sexual lifestyle choices I’s his continued demonstration of a lack of moral character. The links posted earlier, including some similar indictments from the former mayor, speak to exactly that.

  17. Rider’s comment is opinion.

    Your comment above is opinion.

    Opinion that some may view as hateful is still opinion.

    Disagreeing with someone’s beliefs, politics, and/or lifestyle is opinion.

    Accusations of wrongdoing without evidence is not opinion. A personal belief doesn’t become fact simply because someone believes it.

    No matter how intelligent one appears to be, if they don’t know the difference between opinion and fact, we just can’t help them. Especially those who think they’re smarter than the rest.

    This is addressed wherever the shoe fits.

  18. Persistence doesn’t change anything. Unsubstantiated allegations of wrong doing, “cleverly” stated as opinion, don’t cut it either. For the record, we haven’t allowed such comments when made against Democrats. We’ve been criticized for that. It doesn’t matter. If someone wants to make an allegation, against any politician, they need to prove it. We will also insist that a real name be used. Carry on.

  19. UB…

    “I suspect that Mr. Jorgensen himself isn’t as one track minded as FF, as will be making a rational, reasoned vote for Carl in November.”

    That’s a much more mature and measured response than your original bitchy and snide “ex-military with their Stepford wives” salutation. After such warm and collegial displays of civility like that, why wouldn’t Jorgensen support the GOP?

    I think your idea that Jorgensen just whimsically saunters into the RB Inn ballroom and gushes forward undying loyalty for DeMaio for the Big Win are powered by too much rainbow dust and unicorn pee. I have not spoken to Mr. Jorgensen on this issue…his decisions are his own, but it might be worthwhile to explore why he may be a bit reticent and reserved on that notion:

    1) The “collegial and fair” way he was treated by the RPSDC; the bending and breaking of the Committee’s’ OWN bylaws and ram-rodding of a pre-destine handpicked insider, Carl DeMaio, for the endorsement.

    2) The rude and unprecedented partisanship displayed by the College Republican twerp shouting out for DeMaio at the Nov endorsement meeting, then his rude behavior to Jorgensen’s mother (his mother…class act…and more telling is why TK both allowed it, and didn’t take a more proactive leadership role and stomp the proverbial life out of the little cretin) and where the Chairman limited discussion during the voting process specifically to those either for Jorgensen or opposed to DeMaio’s endorsement.

    3) The Chairman’s own disinformation campaign, making oblique references that Jorgensen was really a Democrat.

    4) The unprecedented and complete media lockdown and unethical, if not illegal, antics by the powerful troika with Papa Doug, KFMB owners, and our own (ethically challenged) Roger Hedgecock leading the charge to promote DeMaio while quelling and marginalizing Jorgensen’s media efforts.

    5) The unmitigated refusal on behalf of the RPSDC not sponsoring a debate between DeMaio, Jorgensen or Simon. The faux-perception that the RPSDC is in anyway impartial to other Republicans outside of their nepotistic handful of crony-backed candidates is farcical on its face.

    6) The DeMaio Campaign petty and malicious antics, to include the ripping down of a large Jorgensen banner, displayed on a private residence, on a prominent street in Poway. This was only “out classed” by the reckless and intimidating “lawn sign” blitz, where Jorgensen’s personal property was violated and scores of DeMaio signs were strewn across his lawn, in his planters, and that of his immediate neighbors and adjoining public areas. While it is not proven DeMaio’s campaigners actually did that, it doesn’t take much to conclude there is certainly a precedent for such abhorrent behavior by the candidate.

    7) DeMaio’s blatantly deceptive use of email and “avatars” to spread disinformation about Jorgensen. This was confirmed by a prominent San Diego Republican backer who received an email from what she thought was a regular Rostra contributor who is also a feisty advocate for Tax Reform, and who, surprisingly, is a stanch and unbridled attack voice for DeMaio…he either was lied to by Mr. DeMaio who used his email address and identity unbeknownst to him, OR he was a willing participant in the deception of a fellow Republican donor. (Note- I have spoken personally to this donor and she is no longer providing funding or support to the current RPSDC regime…)

    These are just for starters. With such warmth, open arms and civil appraoches like these, who wouldn’t feel compelled to support that?

    Many will cry “sour grapes” or “one track” obsessions, or, as we have seen time and time again here, the coup de grâce of all New Generation GOP debate muzzling tactics, the vaunted “homophobe” accusation. Alas, no manner of ad hominem attacks, GOP establishment intimidation, and chorus of sycophantic and invested enablers can change the mounting evidence that DeMaio is a bad choice, and the establishment GOP is all in for him.

    Let’s hope Jorgensen takes your advice and “makes a rational, reasoned” choice. Based on the evidence and the informed opinions of thousands, that choice is clearer by the day;


  20. Maybe I can answer FF’s complaints in a succinct manner:

    Politics aren’t fair; they never were and they never will be. The goal, in fact the only goal, is to win.

  21. FF, essentially you accused DeMaio of breaking into his own office. That says it all. You will say ANYTHING to get your way. But that lack of ethical behavior does more to undermine you than anything I could say or do.

    I’ll concede you’re likely a Republican. Like any party, we have our own crazies. Welcome to the GOP!

    But one thing’s for sure — you have the undying support of the Democrats. They LOVE your stuff!! Always have, I suspect.

    You’ll do FAR more for Dems by being intolerant and attacking the GOP from within than Dems can do attacking from the outside. But then, the circular firing squad has likely always been your favorite military formation.

  22. Richard…you have NO credibility. You are either a doop to a candidate you support who used your “good” name to deceptively smear a fellow republican, OR, you are a willing accomplice to his contunued nefarious and deceptive ways. And TK can thank you personally for losing Claire as a supporter…well done, “Republican.”

    You may call me crazy (honestly, that’s all you have), but you are either delusional or a liar…I’ll take crazy over either of your sad realities.

  23. Perhaps FF and I agree to disagree.

    But here’s one BIG difference — I’ll vote for a social conservative Republican against a Democrat — FF, Claire and Karen Grube will NOT vote for a socially liberal Republican against a Democrat — and are more than likely going to vote FOR the Democrat.

    Big tent? Not as THEY see it. Did I mention that Democrats LOVE this trio?

  24. Richard and I can agree to disagree.

    We agree he is full-throated in his support of DeMaio. Where we disagree is if that is a good idea, morally sound, ethically supportable, or politically prudent.

    Mr. Rider believes supporting a candidate that has been shown to plagiarize, embellish, and out right steal others intellectual copyright is a good thing…I, and thousands of others, do not.

    Mr. Rider, perhaps acknowledging the first evidence of plagiarism by Mr. Demaio could be chocked up to inexperience or nativity…but Mr. DeMaio, after the 2002 Website copyright incident;

    was then found again to have stolen the National Journal’s Budget Report in May of 2014..EXACTLY…and Mr. Rider, and the RPSDC leadership STILL support Mr. DeMaio….I and thousands of others do not.

    Mr. Rider, believes the process, where by the Establishment GOP in San Diego manipulated, cajoled, and as has been known for years, intimidated and even forced out fellow Republicans in support of its insider cronyism is ethically, morally and politically sound. I and thousands of others, do not.

    Mr. Rider, believes the unethical and potentially illegal nexus between powerful political interests, media stakeholders, and business brokers and their disproportionate and monopolistic hold on the free and open decisions by San Diegans to choose their own paths and decide fairly their own choices, all in the widely discredited guise of “Central committee representation” is a good thing. I, and thousand of other former GOP constituents, do not.

    Mr. Rider, apparently still backs a candidate that blatantly used Mr. Rider’s OWN identity (allegedly without his knowledge), to smear and besmirch the reputation, positions, and integrity of a fellow Republican (because, as we are to believe, that is NO way to treat fellow Republicans..), and was CALLED OUT ON IT, and STILL believes that Mr. DeMaio is worthy of his support…I and thousands of other San Diegans, would not.

    Mr. Rider, from the time I have first engaged here, has gone to desperate lengths to label those who disagree with him..the “Social Conservatives” as homophobes”, then “closet” democrats, and now just “crazy.”

    We agree Mr. Rider, and many powerful GOP leaders and supporters, enablers, and other Rovian trough-slurpers are fervent and blind supporters of an immoral and ethically challenged GOP-backed candidate. Where we disagree, is on precisely why.

    (Note, every single charge specified here has corroborated witnesses, documented journalistic reporting, and presentable and credible evidence…it is NOT simply opinion anymore. To try to bin it as such now is woefully ignorant or patently manipulative. If only there were some courageous, spirited, aspiring young avant gard jounalists that were independent enough, brave enough, and morally rooted enough to piece this all together…that believed in the tenents and the greatness of the Republican Party, that believed in rightousness, conviction, and integrity enough to call out the cabal of nepotism and corruption that has hampered and stymied the GOP for years in San Diego..know anyone like that, TA?)

  25. Richard, I believe some 60% of the San Diego Republican Central Committee make their living off of politics one way or another. As Carl told the Central Committee at the time of his endorsement he was going to win with or without us. Carl made it clear at the time that he preferred the Democrat’s platform over the Republican’s.

    Carl indicated he had a million dollars to spend. It is fair to assume that it was more lucrative to the political class to endorse him. So they did.

    As Thad Cochran proved its not about Democrat versus Republican ideology anymore. Our political masters just want power. Carl’s god is power and money is how he achieves it. We mainstream Republican’s just wanted someone who would serve our platform. We didn’t get it.

    This isn’t the first time we have lost. Reagan lost to Ford before he beat Bush. We will be here in 2016. As for Peters versus DeMaio what difference does it make to a Republican which Democrat wins?

  26. Richard,

    The question isn’t whether you would vote for a socially conservative Republican. Of course you would because social issues are not your litmus test. Fiscal issues are. The real question is whether you would vote for a fiscally liberal Republican. If not, you probably owe FF an apology.

  27. I used to be concerned about chem-trails too, but ever since I’ve been drinking fluoridated water they don’t bother me so much anymore.

  28. No, you owe Claire one…and perhaps all the people and supporters dooped by your either ignorant or nefarious efforts to get your guy over the finish matter the ethical, moral, or political you, the GOP, or the future of San Diego politics.

    It is you Mr. Rider that is blinded by faux pragmatism, all wrapped up in an unclean self-delusion of false choices.

  29. Can we just change Founding Father’s handle to Sour Grapes? Or given the numerous conspiracy theories he peddles how about Faulty Fanatic?

  30. Richard,

    I am not sure that voting the straight party ticket everytime regardless of the candidates is helpful to The Republic, but it does give you the bona fides to chide FF for not doing the same.

  31. RR…lol..I love it…”hate, homophobia, crazy, democrat..”

    Please, just pick your false narrative and ad hominem charges,and be done with it.

    As with millions across the country witnessed this kind of directed progressive smears and propaganda from Obama’s enablers in 2010, 2012, so will be the same in 2014…but this time it comes from the New Generation Republicans…you know, the ones touting “tolerance, diversity, new direction…”

    Republicans across San Diego County are getting a big whiff of what the Establishment-backed “New Generation” is all about.

    Meet the “New Generation” corrupt, immoral, and now progressive as their Liberal counterparts.

    BTW…did you every apologize to Claire or Kirk for your part in Carl DeMaio’s deceptive emails?

    How many other Rostrans have been duped by this practice?

  32. Details, (and oh BTW TA, am I the only one who has to disclose my bona fides on Rostra??? Who is “Details”?)

    To which conspiracy are you referring?

    The one where Mr. DeMaio’s continued practice of copyright theft and plagiarism has been well documented?

    Where his use of false avatars and misrepresentation to fellow Republicans via email has been discovered? (I recommend you contact Mr. Rider…he is quite knowledgeable of the practice…and where would DeMaio have gotten that idea?

    Is it the persistent and lingering allegations of intimidation, coercion and deception in the guise of fairness by the RPSDC in its practices behind the scenes of endorsements, connection to powerful consulting operatives, or media figures?

    …or this bit of “conspiracy..”

    As far as the “break-in” theory…I already conceded that it is just that…call it a professional hunch…your tax dollars at work. 🙂

    But, to quote a senior GOP operative;

    “We’re trying to see if there’s a pattern. I’m not saying there is, I’m not saying there isn’t.”

    I’m sure for you, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, WH Border policy are all “conspiracies”. The pesky thing about the truth…it never changes…you just have to find it!

  33. Thor’s Assistant says:
    August 1, 2014 at 10:12 am

    “We will also insist that a real name be used. Carry on.”

  34. HQ, this will be the first fall election I’ve voted “straight Republican” (well, sorta straight) since I was a kid. Since 1980 I’ve often had the option of voting for a Libertarian. That resulted in some votes for candidates from each party.

    One reason that, as a Libertarian, I would vote instead for the Republican is that it was a close race where my vote sorta’ counted. If it were lopsided/gerrymandered, I had no qualms about voting for the Libertarian.

    Of course, with “top two” reform in California, third parties have been removed in the name of improving democracy (riiggghhhhttttt). I think it’s going to result in modestly lower voter turnouts, as some people will opt not to vote rather than settle for the usual two choices.

  35. That was the end of a comment which in context was about making unsubstantiated accusations of wrong doing. It was CLEARLY within that context.

    It is simple for those making allegations which could be libelous to hide behind a handle. Accusations of a serious nature, if we will even consider them, must be from a person willing to put a real name on them.


  36. …and Mr. Rider, et al, thought I was the only “hate-driven, intolerant, homophobe” GOP-er…how times change…well and one million dollars from an ethically-challenged insider candidate espousing the contrarian view doesn’t hurt…

    “Tony Krvaric said the local party “affirms its unwavering support for traditional marriage” and looks forward to the U.S. Supreme Court affirming Proposition 8.”

    “Unwavering support…”…until it doesn’t…and now, it leads the charge directed that anyone, including loyal, formerly dedicated, and life-long Republicans who believe that is a “homophobe…bigoted…intolerant…fanatical…crazy…”

    Politics, especially those dripping with hypocrisy, unethical practices, immorality, deception, and self-aggrandizing expedience all in the faux-name of “New Generation”, indeed makes strange bedfellows.

    The previous commenter was spot on; With Republicans like these…who needs democrats?

  37. Blogging or commenting behind a pseudonym is like living in the closet. Come out of the closet, Founding Father. Come out of the closet.

  38. Dave,

    Do you know who HQ is? Details? Ya Know? Ms. Right? Union Buster?I

    I don’t…

    But, to your question…I already have…you need to be more adroit in your research and observation on Rostra or with the several people who know me here, My Friend. I have shared my bona fides, disclosed my name and many know of me, my background, and political positions and areas of interest…just because you don’t, My Friend, doesn’t require me to again.

    I am not a public figure…I reserve the right to minimize my cyber/social footprint. I speak in open and public forums and media in San Diego all the time on a variety of issues and specifically on issues I discuss here (as is my 1st Amendment Right). A handful of SD Rostra people have introduced themselves to me, sharing their support and in some cases encouraging me to share my views. I have nothing to hide, and I am comfortable with my level of disclosure and exposure. I am, however, not required to disclose or needlessly skyline my identity simply because some are either unable or unwilling to discover it on their own.

  39. To be Frank, I don’t think Richard Rider is as real a sounding name as Hypocrisy Questioned.

  40. I don’t know the identities of any of the writers with pseudonyms on this site. But if you’re gonna troll, the honorable thing to do is identify yourself and publicly stand behind your words. I’ve commented about this before. So, it’s not just you, FF. Anyway, I don’t want to do research to find out who you are nor do I need to. You can do what you want and SD Rostra allows it. Doesn’t mean I have to respect your choice or be silent about it. That’s the flip side of freedom, my friend.

  41. We’ve tried to monitor the comments for violations of name calling and the general rule that commenters get only into politics, not personalities.

    But, it’s a tough job to do, especially with a few commenters. We will do better. It’s gotten out of hand, quite frankly.

    It ends now. This goes for all here.

    We have no plans to have to refine or clarify the rules based on the actions of a very few. But, we’ll leave open the reality that it may be necessary.

    Incessantly having to get the last word when your points have been repeated incessantly? Maybe we’ll treat that like letters to the editor — once or twice stated, then you’re done. Just a thought.

    We just denied three comments, for getting into name calling and innuendo, and for calling into question the integrity of those choosing to use their real names.

    That’s not something we commonly do, or want to, but we’ll continue to do so if needed.

    If you can’t debate the issues and even strongly disagree with others without resorting to name calling and accusations, you quite frankly need to go someplace else.

    Our site, our choice.

    Thanks to all of you that make the discussion here both engaging and fun, and doing so in a professional manner, even while disagreeing.

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.