By Jim Miller
To the surprise of many over the last couple of weeks, San Diego’s Labor Council, the San Diego Democratic Party, San Diego Democrats for Equality, Progressive San Diego, the Environmental Health and Justice Campaign, and a host of other local progressives have all lined up to endorse David Alvarez for Mayor. Even as the Gonzalez/Forrester/Jacobs/et al camp has pulled out all the stops in their effort to force-feed Fletcher to local progressives, Nathan just hasn’t gone down that well.
As one person who was being courted by Fletcher before the Democratic Central Committee’s endorsement vote reported, an exasperated Fletcher complained to them about having to work so hard to line up votes. I guess his friends on the inside said it was going to be easy.
Unfortunately for Fletcher, he has had to work hard but it hasn’t paid off. And all this has some folks in the “everybody knows” crowd a bit rattled.
Consequently, a couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of being called out as the “Tea Party of the left” by my mild-mannered colleague, Carl Luna, the champion of civility and “restoring respect” in San Diego politics. Specifically, Luna re-tweeted my column “Fletcher Versus Alvarez: the Battle for the Soul of San Diego’s Democratic Party” with the tag line: “At Last! SD Democrats have a clear road map to irrelevance: become the Tea Party of the left! Kucinich in 2016!” Et tu, Carl?
Later, when the Democratic Party sided with Alvarez, Luna’s perplexed Twitter outrage continued with this missive: “Dems pull a Fletcher: (v) To endorse the ideological candidate and not the moderate one more likely to win.”
From there, after alerting his fan base that he would be the political analyst for the local Fox News affiliate, he went on to re-tweet Restoring Respect’s congratulations of Nathan Fletcher: “Restoring Respect applauds for making pledge not to attack his opponents. Will the other candidates pledge civility too?” And with that, the challenge was laid down to the dastardly ideologues (never mind that minutes after Fletcher made this pledge he went on to attack his rivals at a public forum).
Carl Luna
This kind of silliness brings to mind the response I had the last time I was accused of being the “Tea Party of the left” when I critiqued the corporate orientation of New Democrat Scott Peters:
Alas, ideology, like bad breath, is always something the other guy has. The reality is that we all have an ideology but some people like to pretend they are somehow outside its sway in a happy place unsullied by the sordid fray of competing ideas and interests. The problem with this position is that it doesn’t hold water. Nobody writes or thinks outside of ideology so condemning someone for having ideology is like condemning someone for breathing. It’s a red herring that distracts from actually discussing the history and issues at hand.
Why does history matter? Understanding the financial and ideological evolution of the Democratic Party is centrally important to the kind of deep analysis that moves one beyond the superficial discussion of the politics of personality to the real structural and institutional bases of power. Such an analysis illuminates how power actually works in America. If you don’t do this, you are just skimming the surface.
Thus Luna’s distinction between an “ideological candidate” and a “moderate” is a specious one that really serves as a form of ad hominem, albeit an eminently civil one. At base, such reasoning just isn’t intellectually serious but that doesn’t prevent it from airing regularly on Fox News or appearing on Twitter, in a very respectful manner of course.
What Luna labeled as left “Tea Party” in my column was the argument that the Democrats should endorse Alvarez because he actually represents values and principles that the party should embody and a new direction for the future.
Specifically, I cited an article by Peter Beinart who noted that:
The argument between the children of Reagan and the children of Clinton is fierce, but ideologically, it tilts toward the right. Even after the financial crisis, the Clinton Democrats who lead their party don’t want to nationalize the banks, institute a single-payer health-care system, raise the top tax rate back to its pre-Reagan high, stop negotiating free-trade deals, launch a war on poverty, or appoint labor leaders rather than Wall Streeters to top economic posts. They want to regulate capitalism modestly.
Their Reaganite Republican adversaries, by contrast, want to deregulate it radically. By pre-Reagan standards, the economic debate is taking place on the conservative side of the field. But — and this is the key point–- there’s reason to believe that America’s next political generation will challenge those limits in ways that cause the leaders of both parties fits.
From there I went on to argue that, “the hope for the future is that the next political generation will not just challenge ‘Reaganite orthodoxy’ but also ‘Clintonite orthodoxy’ and bring us a truly progressive Democratic politics that rejects the compromised corporatism of the ‘New Democrats’ with their love of neoliberalism and austerity lite.”
Thus the choice the San Diego Democrats were making in their endorsement process was, “a battle between those who want to put the party on a ‘New (read: corporate) Democrat’ track and those who want the party to stand for all San Diegans. Nathan Fletcher has the ‘New Democrats’ and the 1% crowd in his corner and David Alvarez is the best hope of the progressives.”
This distinction between corporate Democrats and progressives is not some ideological fiction created by extremists; it is an unassailable historical fact. It’s rooted in the history of the Democratic Leadership Council in the 1990s. As Pro Publica has documented:
The New Democrat Coalition was formed as a House caucus in 1997, following in the footsteps of the Democratic Leadership Council [DLC] and President Bill Clinton’s “third way” policies designed to make Democrats and their platform more business friendly. When launched, the group lacked a fundraising PAC and had no legislative staffers. However, they did have allies at the highest levels of the Democratic Party and access to the party’s political and fundraising machine.
The New Democrats were as pro-business then as they are now. Many of the group’s members, including Kind and Crowley, supported the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed marquee financial legislation passed after the Great Depression and paved the way for financial institutions to become “too big to fail.” A year later, many also voted for the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which curtailed regulation of financial derivatives, including the products that played a major role in the collapse of energy firm Enron in 2001 and helped to bring the world economy to the brink of disaster in 2008.
Though the driving force behind both bills was Sen. Phil Gramm, a Texas Republican who left Congress just after their passage to lobby for the Swiss bank UBS, they were pushed hard by Clinton administration officials like Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, signed into law by Clinton, and supported by congressional groups like the New Democrats.
So, as I have written before in my column about The Problem with Liberals, the DLC and its NDC offspring are part of a movement to push the Democratic Party away from economic liberalism to a business friendly cultural liberalism. Consequently, many on the Democratic side aren’t the slightest bit shy about unmooring the Democratic Party from its economic populist roots so that the mainstream of the party will all be good “Republicrats” who won’t scare away the big money that is the mother’s milk of their “soulless” and “corporatist” agenda, as Ralph Nadar has characterized it.
Sadly, it’s just as important to understand the conservative ideological and financial networks inside the contemporary Democratic Party as it is to study the right-wing think tank network that has spawned folks like Carl DeMaio. Once you make those connections, you really see what plutocracy looks like. As Dennis Keith Yergler explains, the New Democrats’ effort to move the party to the right has been well-funded by the Fortune 500 from the beginning:
Over the coming years the corporate contributors to the DLC read like a “Who’s Who” of Corporate America. As Nichols writes, “Those corporate contributors … include(d) Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, the Health Insurance Corporation of America, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and much of the rest of the Fortune 500.” In the words of Ralph Nader, the DLC had become “rooted in their philosophy of turn-your-back-on-organized labor and open-your-pockets-to-corporations.” More pointedly, the author Kenneth Baer, in his book Reinventing Democrats, concluded that the DLC had become nothing more than “an elite organization funded by elite–corporate and private–donors.”
Here in San Diego, we are seeing a local version of this phenomenon and it’s equally important to follow the money.
As Doug Porter observed last week of Fletcher’s candidacy, it’s not about, “Democratic values. I see it as an expression of the growing economic power of Tech/Business types like Paul Jacobs, who is every bit as smart as his Dad and actually runs Qualcomm.”
Over at the SD Reader Matt Potter did a good job of outlining how the Fletcher versus Faulconer contest that the “everybody knows” crowd wants is very much a proxy battle between the Jacobs and Manchester interests . So if you want your local Democracy to be a plaything for the rich and corporations, root for a Faulconer versus Fletcher run-off.
An argument about whether or not this is a desirable outcome complete with historical context and actual facts about very real economic and institutional power at work in our city would be a worthy endeavor, but that’s not likely to happen. Instead, commentators like Luna and those in the Fletcher camp who want to characterize any reference to the historical record as “negative campaigning” or “ideological” are hoping we put all these uncomfortable facts down the memory hole and focus on the superficial horse race story as their handsome hero gallops to the finish line fueled by exactly the same kind of plutocratic donor base as Kevin Faulconer.
But sorry, with our Federal government currently shut down by the radical minions of Grover Norquist, it’s not dirty pool to point out that, until quite recently, Nathan Fletcher was a willing acolyte of Norquist, one who signed Norquist’s pledge with public fanfare and voted time after time after time to “starve the beast” in Sacramento just as his former friends are doing now in the nation’s capitol.
And if you want to know what kind of “Democrat” Fletcher would be if elected, watch his ally Scott Peters as he fails the core principles test by voting with the Republicans on taxes and refusing to draw the line against GOP extortion tactics during the shutdown.
And how uncomfortable was Fletcher in his wrecking crew role way back in the dark ages of a couple of years ago? If you ask his old constituents, like Poway Unified School District Board of Education member Kimberly Beatty, not very. As she noted in a message to local union leaders:
It has been particularly painful to me to see Fletcher claim to champion public education, not only because of his Grover Norquist votes (a pledge he never once violated), but because of the callousness with which he treated community members I brought with me to meetings with him. I saw him make a 90-year-old man shake with anger when Fletcher said that schools were flush with cash and teachers should take a 14% pay cut.
I saw him coldly stare when a mom tearfully described her daughter calling home crying because of headaches from a noisy, overcrowded classroom. Fletcher voted against allowing children access to drinking water during mealtimes, and I have seen plenty of schools with broken water fountains . . .
During a meeting with Mr. Fletcher in February 2012, parents poured their hearts out about the challenges their children are facing in classrooms with 35, 40 and 50 students. Heartbreaking stories were told. Mr. Fletcher’s response was to coldly insist that school funding had actually increased and teachers should take a 14% pay cut. . .
Nathan Fletcher aided and abetted in the worst financial crisis California Public Schools, from Kindergarten through University, have ever faced.
Since his election in 2008, he has never violated his Grover Norquist anti-tax pledge. The claim that he worked with the Governor to close the tax loophole favoring out of state corporations and costing the state billions is a farce. In 2009, he strongly supported this $2 billion corporate tax giveaway. When Governor Brown proposed closing the loophole in January 2011, Fletcher opposed it because the additional revenue would go to schools and to closing the budget deficit.
Only when it was crafted as revenue neutral and Jon Fleishman of the Flash Report tweeted the following, “Because the tax plan is revenue neutral, supporting it does NOT violate a no new taxes pledge,” did Fletcher support it. He has consistently blocked revenue for schools, prohibited local voters from deciding to support additional revenues, supported nonstop cuts to education and other services and funneled school property tax revenues to his developer buddies.
And whether or not Carl Luna and the Fletcher camp like it, that very real history is the narrative that hurts.
Jim Miller
Latest posts by Jim Miller (see all)
- The San Diego Free Press Was a Gift - December 10, 2018
- Democracy Unchained: How to Win the Future - December 3, 2018
- Oligarchy Sucks: Billionaires Are Undermining Our Democracy and Killing the Planet - November 26, 2018
Fletcher’s original sin was facilitating diversion of redevelopment funds—tax revenues—to the Spanos family to build a new playpen for their sportsball club. In doing so, he killed redevelopment in all of California, which might have been a good thing. But if he’s elected, there are sure to be more unintended consequences.
Not to beat a dead horse, so to speak, but I have written before about the actual reality of the electability of Fletcher vs Alvarez. I see a wide differential between the two prominent Democrats running for mayor and I am sure Fletcher is the most viable candidate and will come in 1 or 2 in the primary. Then the naysayers like you will have the “eat crow” job of then backing the democrat and all that the party stands for and brings to the table versus Falconer who is
most distasteful to all concerned.
Don’t think that shooting ourselves in the foot isn’t exactly what the power brokers from our most recent downfall of Filner want. And we seem to be so good at it. Also, don’t think that they aren’t laughing deep down every time they read the articles demeaning one of “us” now that the real fight is on. The old adage of divide and conquer is alive in this current cycle and I perceive you as sort of leading the charge in this print towards acrimony amongst ourselves, which will serve no positive productive purpose in the end. Be careful, as I said to Marco G. in this venue, that your passion to “inform” isn’t fodder to the other side in creating an atmosphere that will ultimately return our city back into what “we” all detested for so many long years. It is also incumbent on those like you to wholeheartedly support the winning candidate from our side when that opportunity arises on Nov 19th and I will do the same, as I have had enough of Falconer, Goldsmith, and their counterparts in our city (past and present), more or less those dolts in Congress that are holding us all hostage.
Alvarez has no real record, nor real message, no personna at all, and that TV commercial is so stupid I cringe when I see it. His key “slogan” is quite pitiful and panders to some unknown audience that I can’t even imagine exists. Wonder who wrote that script for him and did he (Alvarez) think it was persuasive? I give more credit to the electorate than apparently he (Alvarez) does. Not all labor people are supporting Alvarez as you proport. It is pretty much evenly divided and there are substantial democrats and others that know that Fletcher will do a superb job of leading our fair city back in the direction that Filner had laid out as opposed to an abrupt about face as is now taking place by the “temp” Gloria and will surly be continued by an Alvarez mayorship. Watch out what you wish for, it might just come true!
So we’re not supposed to have primaries or run off elections because you say so? NOT.
Primaries, along with the candidates and their supporters that participate, are OK if they serve a purpose, and that purpose is NOT to demean other candidates from the same party in the same race thus creating an atmosphere that turns off voters from actually wanting to vote ,and, does not perpetuate animosity that serves no agenda but to make the “pundits” feel warm inside. Positive comments always work well and the lack of negativity still is a course to follow unless some really grievous thing has happened. I am for pragmatism and a real practical world view so we don’t spin out of control again and shoot straight down the rabbit hole and end up with K F in charge as the “strong” (handed) mayor that we will all regret.
Your positivity is duly noted. LOL.
I support the candidate that helps build good middle class jobs, supports public education, is pro-union and favors reinstating the higher tax rate on the wealthiest. That was when American was at it’s capitalist best.
Gee, I wonder which candidate is most closely aligned with those ideas?
Good article Jim! Give ’em hell!
Thank you one more time, Jim Miller. You’ve written another deep primer on San Diego’s uniquely chaotic politics, and anyone with a taste for reason can archive it for future reference.
You’re the first to give big criticism of Carl Luna, the Wizard of Odd, so accomplished a a rhetorician as to have been hired by local TOX TV. Luna is one of our local masters of that major tactic of the Tea Party and the whacked right wing think tanks: inversion. The victim becomes the criminal. This was probably made most famous by its inadvertent discoverer, a general in Vietnam, who. when asked why a particular small Vietnamese hamlet had to be burnt to the ground — its remaining occupants either incinerated or forced to flee — simply responded, “In order to save the village we had to destroy it.” In much the same way, one day in a moment of unearned tranquility Luna might catch himself saying this about the Tea Party’s shutdown of the U.S. government: In order to save the government we had to destroy it.
You know you’ve touched these weirdos at their tender spot when you get those outraged protests from a Dana Levy, who seems to want us to believe is a Democrat. The chaos among Republican is so viral that Levy can actually advocate that Democrats should elect Republican Nathan Fletcher because he “is the most viable candidate.” He wants to save the Democratic Party by electing a Republican.
Luna or Levy, Levy or Luna, they’re masters of inversion and provocation. They practice a politics based in the belief that people are stupid. It’s a ferocious sort of orthodoxy made inevitable by its internal inconsistencies. The angrier they get the more obvious they’re hypocrisy.
I have been and continue to be a democrat, even in the tough times, since that rat Nixon ran and got elected while I was drafted into the Army and he perpetuated the war. Your vitriol is quite caustic and yet uninformed. People ARE somewhat stupid (proven time and time again) when it comes to politics in America (the fact that elected officials from the South and other less progressive areas rule the House now is the current example) and I hope it doesn’t get repeated here in November or a few days thereafter in the finale. I wonder where you come from that it is so easy for you to cast around inuendos and link-ups to to someone I have never met or associated with. Apparently he must be a deep thinker and/or someone to whom you ascribe talent. Lastly, I do have a great appetite for reason (and not solely emotions or “feelings”) and it is from that vein that I attempt to reason that Fletcher will do a much better job for all of us as mayor than the other candidates. A horse race always starts at the gate and it is the actual running and doing that matters in the end. Your attempt at cheap slights and aspersions does neither dissuade or convince me at all. I am union, support unions, vote union, and the Labor Council and democratic party of San Diego does not do my bidding.
It’s not about you, Dana Levy, it’s about making sense.
If you’re insulted by my identification of Carl Luna with Dana Levy, then you should consider giving up some of the beliefs and faux democratic (I notice you won’t capitalize it) beliefs you share with Luna. Namely, that the best chance the Democrats have is to give up their beliefs.
And you probably should give up these ferocious complaints about my “vitriol” and “caustic and yet uninformed” criticism of conservative ideologues. You tend to prove what I said about those “tender spots” showing up when conservatives bark so loudly at their critics.
You couldn’t do me any more justice by that admission of yours that you believe, yes, that “People ARE somewhat stupid.”
I still don’t see any sense in any of your analogies. And, apparently your description and/or perception of what a conservative is differs from mine. My true test is are they self centered, selfish, self-righteous, and mired in religious jargon and delusions. If you and I are thinking the same, then we do have common ground except in our choice to lead the charge for Democrats in the upcoming race (please forgive me if I forget a capitol letter on occasion). I never will concede that you or others can tell me that I am not a true democrat because I don’t get bogged down by your personal biases and personalized ideologies. I’d be a good communist if that was on the table as we are all in it together, sink or swim (Citizen’s United be damned). But I won’t be a “pie in the sky” wasteful voter as others seem to wish and being on the inside with someone who actually listens and has an ear with which to listen is miles ahead of what we have had to suffer for low these last 20+ years. The importance to us selecting our leader is paramount in this next election as the balance of power can shift in a second back to being mired down by the super rich in this city or “business as usual” crowd. If you think the electorate is well informed and careful in casting their vote then you too are reaching the tipping point of rationality and sanity. I am always just hoping that we/ they can see through the smokescreens and get off the “guns-gays-god” conveyor belt as the theme always prevalent from the right and make thoughtful logical decisions in the booth (or absentee). George W is an example of not only doing that once but twice. And the Supreme Court is no better, so we must always be careful for and vigilant of the ramifications of the knee jerk reaction when voting.
“I never will concede that you or others can tell me that I am not a true democrat because I don’t get bogged down by your personal biases and personalized ideologies. ”
You know, if you’d just say what it is about Fletcher Nathan that is encouraging, what he thinks about a new Convention Center/Charger Stadium, about state environmental law and Coastal Commission decisions, about the funding of education, public transit, full employment and other Democratic Party concerns — not what you think about those subjects and proper ideology — you might be more convincing, either as a Republican or a Democrat for Fletcher Nathan.
Last go around. The convention center expansion will be good for the entire population of San Diego , just as the current undersized one is. That doesn’t make that one project anti-neighborhood. The Charger stadium is another issue. I and many others think Spanos and Co. can build their own stadium on their own dime if The Murph isn’t up to their standards, or seek greener pastures. State environmental laws are just that. How does one beat the state? Just like the Coastal Commission has a job to d0 and the City only gets so many members and they are not especially bound to their appointee, although that would be nice. Fiduciary responsibility and law following are major concerns for all those serving on commissions. The Democratic party has opinions and the mayor should listen, as Fletcher surely will, but I want a mayor to do as he/she thinks, not feels, is right for the City as a whole as their first order of business. Education is not necessarily in the purview of the mayor but who isn’t for public education except the Reps? Public transportation is a major issue for San Diego and I think any Democrat is a proponent of furthering it at all levels. iI only we had something like Europe or Japan, etc., but that is another discussion. Remember the bullet train and its multi hundreds of millions and it won’t even come here? Those are all questions I assume will be posed at “our” debate and the answers will be enlightening. Watch out that Faulconer will have his fingers crossed the entire time and his platitudes will be flying high for this audience. Beware of the wolf/ sheep thing from him but my reasoned application is that Fletcher is a democrat at heart, besides declaration, and has a good sense of what that means. He will listen to even you and me and that is miles ahead of Faulconer,who I can assure you will be the other candidate in the run-off. Keepin’ it real here, next different discourse? Dana
You got in a lot of last words, Sgt.
Looks like the RICH folks in San Diego have two candidates — Kevin Faulconer (the anointed Republican) and Nathan Fetcher (the former Republican-turned Independent-now-I-wanna-be a Democrat, trust me).
It’s quite obvious that Fletcher is a Trojan Horse financed by Irwin Jacobs.
Plea to Democratic voters hoping for a progressive future in San Diego — cast your ballot for someone who was a Democrat a year ago.
Great piece, Jim. I’m no Clintonite. I cut my radical political teeth during the Clinton era. Protesting him, Boxer, Feinstein (not to mention the Republiklans and their convention). I’m glad there is a progressive like Alvarez in the race to ward off the Fletcher types and their neoliberalism.
NOW you’re talking, Jim Miller.
Excellent analysis of that New Democrat “Third Way ” that Bill Clinton and his incredibly rich friends peddled to the American people and its striking local expression in the upcoming race for Mayor of San Diego.
I don’t believe San Diegans will fall for the faux “Democrat, “faux” executive” and faux “professor” being put up by the Jacobs Family as their boy at City Hall. Nor will they succumb to the smooth public relations man shill for U-T publisher and hotelier Doug Manchester.
DAVID ALVAREZ FOR MAYOR OF SAN DIEGO. Like everyone, Councilman David Alvarez seemed stunned by the summer’s fast-moving mayoral crisis, but he rapidly regained his equilibrium and — think about it — made a genuinely courageous decision to run for Mayor. His opponents are fronts for our plutocrats-with-plans Doug Manchester and Irwin Jacobs.
David Alvarez will represent San Diegans — not the business-as-usual San Diego special interests — and he will apply his grass-roots sensibilities and experience to improve the quality of life in all neighborhoods of this neglected city.
David has the advantage of support from a political majority on City Council. David has community support rooted in his church. David has the life experience of an ordinary man who works to keep food on the table and a roof over his head while raising a family that includes an aged grandparent. David is intelligent and well-educated; committed to the good that politics can do for people; articulate in describing the genuine needs of this town. David is a native son. David Alvarez is the real deal.
The key to the November 19 election will be voter turnout. David Alvarez can win outright with 50%+1. So get your absentee ballot and cast your vote for the honest Democrat, David Alvarez. That’s my plan.
…and yet the Barrio Logan org endorsed Fletcher . Gov. Brown supported Fletcher over Filner in the primary last June. The Speaker of the Assembly endorses Fletcher, as does Rep. Juan Vargas and State Senator Marty Block. If Fletcher comes in 1-2, this will certainly make a statement about the dubious influence of the LC and the Dem CC.
Barrio Logan did NOT endorse Fletcher. Only a handful of individuals, most of whom do not even live here, endorsed him. Next week residents, leaders and other people from Barrio Logan and other historic barrios will endorse Alvarez en masse. Many other politicians, prominent progressives and leaders within San Diego’s marginalized neighborhoods have come out in support, or will within the coming days, Alvarez as well. Alvarez has the backing. And he can win this.
As Steven Tyler so aptly put it, “dream on”.
On KPBS radio last month. Mr. Luna kept referring to Bob Filner as Richard Nixon type of politician. Given this misleading historical analysis, one wonders why it was uttered continually. Beware of those who claim to be ” neutral”, want “civility,” “moderation.” These are code words for keeping the power elite in place while placating the masses. Its not surprising Luna resides in the grandest of all propaganda machines- Catholic institute……University of San Diego .
Dana, it’s amazing to me to constantly hear democrats complaining about David Alvarez, the Labor Council and the Democratic Party endorsement process because. Isn’t the endorsement process in place to make sure that the candidate who best represents the values, practices and platform gets the nod from each respective organization? I mean, what good is a process for endorsement that has candidates answer questions if they just endorse the candidate that has the best chance of winning? If that is the new standard for endorsing candidates, why don’t we just grant endorsements based on polling. Better yet, why even vote. Let’s just appoint the next mayor based on who’s doing best in current polling? Elections and candidates should be about vision, values, and experience, not just simply who has the most money or name recognition to win.
Your thinking, although washed by emotion, is weak. Do you remember Ralph Nadar? He was the third wheel that cost US several successes. Lieberman? How about Bustamonte and his campaign of “no on the recall but yes on him (if you must)”? There are plenty of other examples of failure based on poor decision making on our part that really worked out well. I am stating that as Democrats we are prone to doing the wrong thing, voting for the candidate who makes us feel warm inside, and watching from the outside in the end too often as the Republicans are swept into office even though we had the best candidates in the race. If one follows and learns the lessons of our past mistakes we can do better. The Central Labor Council and Local Democratic Party have their own agendas, that are often driven by too much emotion and they don’t always get it right. Have you wondered why so many prominent Dems have endorsed Fletcher? It is not ONLY that he can win but that he does a better job of representing the direction that the majority of Dems are going using a pragmatic approach.
And yes, it is all about winning and then doing what you can to steer a course that helps our causes most effectively. My position is that Alvarez will be more inadequate when it comes to the runoff and a, or any, wasted vote or effort does damage. Further, all negative essays and name calling/labeling towards either of the front runner Democrats does a disservice to all. Lastly, as stated before, I will vigorously support either of our fellow candidates in the runoff but we need to show what our strengths are now and garner as much support while we are at it and not disparage each other at the ultimate cost of finishing second. There are many questions raised about both of our candidates (and Faulconer has so much baggage that it should be no problem defeating him) that are answered by their individual camps and as long as we endeavor to remain constructive we have a good chance of having a successor to Bob that will satisfy most of us. And, it is the ultimate win that is at stake and don’t for a moment think that the Reps aren’t glad that there are two Dems in this race that are dividing us. The endorsement process has it’s own limitations and while I would like to see a united front we are faced with making a decision that will either bring us a victory (and all that that entails) 0r not. That is my point. For too long the Democratic Party as a whole has shot ourselves in the foot and then the only consolation remaining has been to say we did what we felt was right and are left staring down into the abyss as the Reps lead us down the same old tired path to devastation and dismay. My opinion is that Fletcher is the one who can and will be elected to lead us forward into a future that will continue to develop San Diego into a great city like Bob had started.
Just a word of advice, Dana Levy… you shouldn’t be saying people are weak-minded, especially not if you want to convince them that you’re their ally, especially if you say, “For too long the Democratic Party as a whole has (sic) shot ourselves (sic) in the foot…” See, people actually read what you write. They may even be more carefully thoughtful than you.
I don’t know who is and isn’t my ally except those to whom I actually have a relationship (and even then there is disagreement on occasion) and I speak (write) how I see it even if sometimes to the dismay of others who also claim to be Democrats. It is not ally’s that I want to generate but thought processes and conclusions that I want to challenge. It is the history of missteps to which I elude and I don’t disparage others just for the fun if it. I disagree with some of the writers opinions and offer my own to refute their positions. If I deem references to weakness or faulty thinking appropriate then it is as I perceive their arguments not their characters or passions. It is the expression of one man’s opinion and never meant to seek a superior advantage from which to pontificate. Your reference to your own (possibly) more thoughtful care process does no one any benefit except to dilute a real problem in our collective attitudes towards the value of each and every vote cast.