Guest Commentary
by Sen. Tony Strickland
Nathan’s decision to leave the Republican party must have been a difficult one. It isn’t easy to leave a party you’ve been a member of for nearly 20 years. While I’m disappointed we’ve lost Nathan, I know he feels this is what is right in his heart.
It’s okay to be sad he left the party, many of us are, but attacking Nathan’s character is taking it too far. Nathan’s character, tested in battle in Iraq and Africa, is rock solid. Nathan is the same person he was a week ago. None of his positions changed and he remains one of the most honest, hard-working and smartest members of the Legislature. He will make a great mayor. His accomplishments in the legislature speak for themselves: he authored Chelsea’s Law, a groundbreaking, difficult piece of legislation to pass, held the line against higher taxes and authored regulatory relief for small business.
It’s telling that so many of us who know Nathan still stand with him. Governor Wilson, Assembly Leader Conway, Senator Anderson, Senator Wyland, Republican Caucus Chairman Brian Nestande and thousands of others are fully behind Nathan and believe he is the person best-positioned to move San Diego forward.
I’m proud to endorse Nathan, to trust him to do the right thing. I stand with him. I hope you will too.
Comments 18
Got it. Now I get one of the reasons why conservatives make up a permanent minority in Sacramento.
I don’t begrudge Nathan leaving the party. Frankly could give a bleep. I am not a party insider nor have a desire to be.
But what I think is wrong is that he is feeding the narrative of the media that conservatives are committed to gridlock and not governing.
Now lets say you are DTS voter, in…I don’t know….lets say Oxnard and the mighty 26th Congressional district. You pick up your NYT and read David Brooks saying that the GOP is the party of no and will not get anything done.
Why in the BLEEP would you send a Republican (Candidate Strickland, looking at you) to Congress? I mean you care about getting things done in your district. You think there are some problems that need solving. But hey, the GOP is the party of no. Look, one of their ex-rising stars says so.
Don’t be mad at Nathan for leaving. Be mad at Nathan for the damage that he is doing with the false narrative.
Actually, the irony of this is that come the fall I think you can pretty much predict like the sun setting in the West that Senator Strickland will be attacking Linda Parks for re-regsitering as an independent. I hope this blog post can make a special return engagement around that point.
“Nathan is the same person he was a week ago”
Maybe a week ago but Mr Fletcher is certainly not the same person from a month ago. A month ago, he petitioned GOP activists, for their money and time, A week ago, he criticized GOP activists for being too partisan.
Frankly, I hope this trend continues in government. If Jerry Brown doesn’t convince the voters to raise their taxes this November, I’m hoping he follows the Fletcher model and quits
Great. I’m sure hearing these encouraging words from a former legislator and failed candidate for statewide office will console Republicans.
That said, just another person missing the point. It’s about Nathan’s manipulation of the media for imminent personal/political gain.
Strickland is a state senator. Currently.
It’s unfortunate that these Republican elected officials stand with Nathan Fletcher not because he is too moderate. It’s because what he is doing is fundamentally dishonest.
Nathan wanted to be the golden boy that saved GOP in CA, that’s why he aligned himself so closely with Pete Wilson, because California Republicans needed a big city mayor to run for statewide office. He wanted to be a Meg Whitman Co-Chair so he could build a statewide finance base.
Nathan is very calculating. He’s got the campaign operative background (CRP political director, district director Duke Cunningham), the military background (which was heroic and should always be honored), and then faked the business background so he could say he was a businessman, I think it was some securities job under Marshall Merrifield.
His wife has spent her entire professional career as a Republican operative (NRCC, Bush-Cheney, Schwarzenegger).
These people don’t make decisions unless either every calculation and poll is seen, or, in Nathan’s case last week, without any regard for truth.
When will Nathan get called out for dodging questions on his speech to SDGOP endorsement meeting? Because he does everytime. And why does he dodge it?
Because Nathan Fletcher is a extremely calculating, yet selfish politician.
The Republican electeds and past electeds would be wise to withdraw their support from Mr. Fletcher – it makes you wonder who else will they endorse? A libertarian? A Democrat? The party exists for a reason. And I like Erik’s idea.
The RNF –
We shouldn’t let off the SD press corp. They REFUSE to play gotcha journalism with Nathan, playing back the choice quotes from the central committee speech.
I am PARTICULARLY fond of “I cared so much about the party I slept on floors in campaign offices.” FLOORS!!! Can you believe it!!!????
Boggles the mind how much he cared? So much he would abandon the party and do lasting damage to the effort to get more center right candidates elected a mere 19 days after telling us about how much he cared.
i’m writing and deleting, then writing and deleting…just trying to figure out how to be cordial. Tony Strickland is a career politician who (along with his wife) live off the public teat. They are EXACTLY what is wrong with the system.
Anyway, Sen. Strickland we are not “sad he left the party.” We are p*ssed. And we’re not so much p*ssed that he left. Many of us, myself included, get frustrated with the party and political shenanigans that occupy the time of people such as yourself, and prev ent you from accomplishing what we elect you to do.
What we’re really p*ssed at is the way Nathan left. He should have done it before he started the mayoral race, not 17 days after doing everything in his power to either get the GOP endorsement or prevent Demaio from getting it.
For what it’s worth, I am undecided on the mayoral candidates but after Nathan’s little stunt, I know for sure that I will not be voting for him.
How ironic that party affiliation is the burning issue in a “non-partisan” contest. What a complete farce.
I love that the establishment types are circling the wagons on this. They have helped create the perfect environment for this little circus and now we’ll see if Fletcher’s move shakes things up enough to finally break up the log jam. I’m hoping it does.
I think it’s great that he did it, it’s so entertaining to read the whiny sour-grapes comments from party machine-heads. Win-win!
Tboss, just to respond to your comment…I am by no means a party guy. I was heavily involved in local, state, national politics for a long time. Volunteering time, serving as a delegate and on committees, fundraising, etc. Between my personal donations and corporate dollars combined contributions were well in to the six figure range annually. I got disillusioned and dropped out of those circles almost 10 years ago, and focused more on business endeavors. And my dollars and free time now go to charity, which is much more rewarding.
What many here are conveniently forgetting is that it was the party that turned its back on Fletcher first. It is a rare occurrence when a political party endorses one non-incumbent party member over another a primary election. You didn’t see the Democrats taking sides in either of the contested Congressional races.
Many of you have pointed out examples of Republicans who have lost primary battles, but stayed with the party. This is a very different scenario. In each of those cases, it was the voters that made the choice without guidance from the party. By endorsing DeMaio, even though he wasn’t the only high profile Republican in the race, the party itself was telling Republicans to vote against Fletcher.
Tboss – neither am I. I just think that there is a right and a wrong way to comport oneself in politics.
Tboss = win.
The SDGOP made one of its most divisive decisions ever – got embarrassed for it, and now its partisans, stakeholders, and other hangers-on are going crazy.
I wouldn’t have a preference between candidates, except that now I want to see a repeat of 2005 when the party has to crawl back to Jerry Sanders, hat-in-hand, after the Francis debacle.
I find it remarkable that all of these out of town politicians would be telling San Diegans who they should elect for mayor.
I get it: How dare stupid San Diego Republican stand in the way of Fletcher’s ascension to become Governor.
The Cult of Fletcher is absurd.
To D. Morton’s point: That will never happen because the reality is that if Fletcher did somehow become Mayor, everyone knows that within 2 to 3 years he’ll re-register as a Democrat so that he can run for Governor.
Three cheers for Nathan! As a long-time Republican Woman Federated member, I am fed up with the thugs who have taken over the Republican Party of San Diego County. If they would fight the Democrats and register more Republicans, we wouldn’t be the minority Party in San Diego… their behavior is embarrassing and I’m backing Nathan all the way!
Fletcher has already demonstrated his trustworthyness in his behind closed doors raising the cap on the former Redevelopment Agency loans. He is second only to Dumanis for being the worst choice for mayor.