By Jim Miller
If the environment matters to you and you had to choose between a candidate with a 48% lifetime voting record on environmental issues from the California League of Conservation Voters and a 38% lifetime voting record from the Sierra Club or a candidate with an 88% voting record on environmental issues, you’d think the choice would be clear.
That is, of course, unless this choice involves Nathan Fletcher, the magic environmentalist, whose husky whispers of promise and inside game voodoo can make uncomfortable facts disappear like dust in the wind.
Last week San Diego Politico posted an interesting piece on how the San Diego League of Conservation Voters’ endorsement process fell prey to the Fletcher fairy dust as they handed him their endorsement despite the horrible lifetime voting record of 48% he has earned from their own organization. And it’s only that high because of a few decent votes that Fletcher made when he was positioning himself for his first failed mayoral run. Before that, way back in the prehistoric era of 2011, Fletcher’s lifetime score with this group had been an even more dismal 35%. Combine that with his rotten Sierra Club score and any reasonable person would have to give him an F for his record on environmental issues.
Some of the lowlights of Fletcher’s environmental voting record include missing a vote on opposing offshore drilling, missing a vote on a groundwater monitoring program, missing a vote on funding state parks, voting no on marine oil shipping regulations, voting no on solar power energy credits, voting no on renewable energy requirements, and on and on. You put that record alongside his stellar 92% record with the Chamber of Commerce and you get the picture.
Who was the person with the 88% record? You guessed it, David Alvarez. So why did the San Diego League of Conservation Voters make this baffling endorsement? As San Diego Politico notes:
This should have been an easy endorsement for Alvarez had the decision been based on the facts about the environment. Instead, the San Diego League of Conservation Voters voted to endorse Fletcher based on speculation about electability. This decision, especially after giving Alvarez the highest environmental rating last year, immediately calls into question the legitimacy of the LCV.
Their website claims that they engage in election activities on behalf of the environment. The reality has been releasing an annual report card and maybe a single mailing per cycle. The chatter within the progressive communities is that the LCV has become a shell organization that exists to provide environmental credentials to candidates and campaigns that need it whether they deserve it or not.
And the odd thing is that the LCV doesn’t make its decision with the expectation of monies or favors. All it has is its brand. Which is why this de-legitimization is so baffling.
Ignoring their own research, as well as the environment, for political expediency makes sense when you look at who is on the board. Supporters of Fletcher were successful in adding the LCV name to his mayoral campaign even though his environmental record pales next to Alvarez.
Who were those supporters of Fletcher? When I contacted a board member for details I was told that they could not publically discuss deliberations or say exactly who was in on the vote, but if you check the website of the San Diego League of Conservation Voters you will find that the board includes (surprise!) leading Fletcher promoter Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez along with Evan McLaughlin and Humberto Peraza, both members of her legislative staff. Alonso Gonzalez, chief of staff of Fletcher supporter Assemblyman Ben Hueso, is also on the board. And LCV President Livia Borak is an attorney in the Coast Law Group, whose cofounder and Managing Partner is none other than Marco Gonzalez, Lorena’s brother and himself a Fletcher endorser.
According to KPBS, it appears that while the Alvarez supporters honorably recused themselves from the vote, the Fletcher crowd did not feel the same obligation: “Gabriel Solmer, an aide for Alvarez, said she quit her position on the league’s board over the endorsement process. She said while she recused herself from the vote because of her ties to Alvarez, board members who had publicly endorsed Fletcher or worked with him were allowed to vote.”
Once you know that, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see how you can transform a mayoral candidate with a failing lifetime score on environmental issues into the second coming of John Muir. And while this is amusing fodder for the SD Rostra, it should be no laughing matter for those who want to think that conservationist groups care more about politicians’ actual records on the environment than their perceived electability.
After the vote, two of the board members not aligned with the Fletcher fix resigned immediately and the consequent endorsement now stands as a kind of sick joke on local environmentalists and just one more example of how the advocates for the magic Democrat are doing everything they can to split and bamboozle San Diego’s progressive movement from labor to rank and file Democrats, to community activists, to environmentalists.
But that’s just what you have to do when the only record you can run on doesn’t stand up in the clear light of day. Indeed if you used the San Diego League of Conservation Voters’ own ratings you’d find that Nathan Fletcher’s rotten record doesn’t just pale in comparison to David Alvarez who tops their list.
Even if we are generous and go with the California League of Conservation Voters’ lifetime score of 48% rather than the significantly lower score Fletcher earns from the Sierra Club, Nathan loses out to just about everyone. Kevin Faulconer, the dreaded Republican that Fletcher was anointed to save us from, comes in with a 70% record, a good 22% ahead of the magic environmentalist. Well, you say, at least he’s better than the evil Carl DeMaio, right? Think again: DeMaio comes in with a failing 59% rating that is still a good eleven points above Fletcher’s 48%.
Poof! There goes the fairy dust and all you’re left with is sick feeling and some toxic politics.
But, wait, there’s no need to hope a magic Democrat will save us, when there is a true environmentalist Democrat in the race named David Alvarez.
As I’ve written here before, the real choice in this election is which Democrat will make it to the run-off against Faulconer. We have a clear choice between a faux Democrat chosen by a small group of insiders to help establish a machine driven by loyalty to political power brokers and moneyed interests or a Democratic candidate that comes out of the same grassroots movement that won the last election and will actually represent its values not just pretend to do so.
The folks at the Sierra Club clearly see that as they are set to announce their endorsement of David Alvarez today. And as the momentum for Alvarez continues to build at the grassroots level it appears that, after November 19th, we might just have a run-off that means something more than choosing which green-washed wing of the business party you’d prefer to rule.
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 Nathan is an empty suit.
The Sierra Club will be announcing their endorsement very soon. Unlike LCV, They held a well attended membership forum to hear from candidates. Alvarez, Aguirre and Fletcher attended.
The San Diego Chapter has over 10,000 members. Nearly 100 attended the forum To hear directly from the candidates.
I encourage readers to consider the different process and results when Sierra Club makes their formal announcement.
Empty suits vote along party lines and go along to get along.
Alert and awake candidates vote for what they think is right. Alert candidates know that both major parties are wrong sometimes and are not afraid to disagree and debate.
Thank you for blatantly leaving out Mike Aguirre’s stellar record on advocating on behalf of our environment.
Let us know what he’s done. It’s important.
Please note that the League of Conservation Voters San Diego (LCVSD) and the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) are not the same organization. CLCV is the statewide organization that rates legislators and the governor on their environmental performance in the annual California Environmental Scorecard; CLCV makes endorsements primarily at the state level (statewide offices, ballot measures, BOE, Congress, Assembly, and State Senate). Local leagues such as LCVSD make their endorsements independently of CLCV.
I’m just baffled as to how a group, who should take a principled stand for candidates who best represent their goals and values, gets caught up in predicting electability. Simply stated: Stand with the candidate who has stood with you.
Obama also missed a handful of votes because he was campaigning. Just because a Rep misses a vote shouldn’t negatively affect his record. It is the equivalent of an abstention. This article correlating stating that Fletcher’s record is tarnished because of “missing a vote on opposing offshore drilling, missing a vote on a groundwater monitoring program, missing a vote on funding state parks” sounds like a GOP attack article instead of a Democratic grassroots piece. Be careful, all of your criticism will be used against DEMOCRATs in the future when Nathan runs for ANY office. The means do not justify the ends because like it or not, Nathan is a long lifetime in politics as a Democrat.
It’s great to see a focus on the environmental credentials of our mayoral candidates. I’d like to point out that, as president of LCVSD, I was not contacted for this article, and although the author is certainly entitled to his opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts. David Alvarez does have a high score on the latest LCVSD Environmental Quality Report Card (88%). We don’t calculate or give “lifetime” scores for the local report card. On the state LCV score card, Nathan received an 86% in the last legislative session, which is the score analogous to David’s 88% score. He was also outspoken in his support of the proposed bag ban (after the mayoral primary in 2012). http://sandiego.surfrider.org/surfrider-foundation-assemblyman-nathan-fletcher-to-announce-support-for-statewide-plastic-bag-ban and served on the regional advisory council for CLCV, helping with our Latino Enviro Voter Poll. As I stated in our comments, the scorecard is one factor in the endorsement process — it is not determinative. We also made the endorsement based on written questionnaires and in-person interviews. LCVSD requires a 2/3 majority for all endorsements, and this process was conducted in the same manner as all of our previous endorsements.
It’s unfortunate, though inevitable, that in an important race with multiple qualified candidates, someone will be upset with the outcome. However, we chose to endorse the candidate who, in our experience, has shown an ability to lead and a commitment to do so on environmental issues. With a full perspective, we felt Nathan was the best candidate, and so we chose to endorse him. Others may disagree, but I stand by the process and hope that progressives stop resorting to conspiracy theories just because they don’t like the outcome.
Cherry picking the handful of calculated votes that Fletcher made when he was positioning himself for his last failed run for mayor while underplaying his lifetime score and otherwise horrible record on the issues is precisely what was wrong with your “process.” And pointing to the actual composition of your board is not a conspiracy theory; it’s just pointing out the obvious. That’s why voters who care about the environment should pay more attention to the Sierra Club than your organization.
Jim, with all due respect, you focused solely on David’s score last year — that’s cherry picking. I gave numerous reasons for our support of Nathan, but your focus is on the CLCV report card. It’s disingenuous to say you simply pointed out the composition of our board and for whom I work. You pointed these things out to undermine the integrity of the vote. It’s much easier to discount the vote and make us the bad guy than to consider the fact that Nathan deserved the endorsement. Lastly, I’ll just point out that I was at the Sierra Club debate and deliberation — I’m a member. It wasn’t as black and white as you’ve made it seem. Even if we’re not all on the same page right now, I think we’re all hoping for the same thing– a better, more progressive SD.
The facts speak for themselves.
Facts, Jim? The fact is that David is an environmental ally, and has staffed himself with some people who have good environmental street cred. However, a Donna Frye he is not, and it’s unrealistic to hold him up as such. It’s also factual that Nathan Fletcher is an environmentalist, and has evolved in his thinking and approach over the last year to a point where some of us in the environmental movement are confident he will be an effective leader and voice for our issues. Not all of us were cut from the same cloth at birth, and who are we to suggest a person, even a politician, cannot evolve?
So, should those of us in the environmental community that support Nathan cut ties with David since he is our alleged political enemy? Or, as we’re seeing here, should David’s supporters poison their future dealings with Nathan because they didn’t get every endorsement they wanted?
Sounds like a bunch of people taking cues from the Republicans’ playbook, if you ask me.
And please, enough of the silly conspiracy theories. Yes, the Progressive leaders in this County are connected in any number of ways. My sister, employees, friends… they serve on a number of boards around town. Hell, you and I are connected too, remember? Any yet, when you and I agree on something I wouldn’t expect anyone to imply or infer I was doing so to pay you back for including me in your book. Absurd, right?
So how about we all look down the road and realize we will not succeed in achieving our mutual progressive goals by fomenting dissension among our own ranks?
Again, claiming that it’s a conspiracy theory to simply point out the actual composition of the board and how the political allegiances of the board members might influence their vote is what’s silly here. An interlocking web of political and professional interests is quite different than a ten year old, one time interaction, no? I think most reasonable people would think so.
And those of us who want a genuinely progressive mayor have good reason to question the judgement of those who think that claiming a candidates views “have evolved over the last year” is sufficient reason to make him our mayor. That’s setting the bar pretty low.
One person’s “fomenting dissension” is another person’s speaking the truth to power.
Exactly which votes did David Alvarez get wrong?
David had stood up for the poor and disenfranchised in San Diego more than any other person on the City Council today. David has taken over Ms. Frye’s role as the most compassionate, caring, Council person who does their homework, reads the reports, and has questions for staff.
Unfortunately, Lorena Gonzalez & Evan McLaughlin leave an empty legacy everywhere they appear. The labor movement was left worse off when they left the SD Labor Council. Some people grow up thinking that dishonesty and manipulation are its own reward. Lorena’s Environmental Law credentials are as manufactured and exaggerated as Fletcher’s are as a Democrat. It would be nice to get a real person, next election, for the office Lorena now holds. We have to quit putting our trust in “empty suits”.
Which candidate will fight to eliminate plastic bags in San Diego? That’s a concrete step I could get behind. Every candidate is all for a good environment, but I want to see concrete steps not political blather. Talk is cheap.
Obama also missed a handful of votes because he was campaigning. Just because a Rep misses a vote shouldn’t negatively affect his record. It is the equivalent of an abstention. This article correlating stating that Fletcher’s record is tarnished because of “missing a vote on opposing offshore drilling, missing a vote on a groundwater monitoring program, missing a vote on funding state parks” sounds like a GOP attack article instead of a Democratic grassroots piece. Be careful, all of your criticism will be used against DEMOCRATs in the future when Nathan runs for ANY office. The means do not justify the ends because like it or not, Nathan is a long lifetime in politics as a Democrat.
A “missed vote” is important to calculate into a “record”. I’ve spent more than 20 years working to formulate “records” of labor endorsed candidates and you would be surprised about how many “votes” are missed simply to satisfy one constituency while not pissing off another. A “missed vote”, even when it tells you little, tells you enough to know that at the very least, the candidate does not care about the issue!
Fletcher will never be a “lifelong” Democrat! If he is, he will be a DINO (a Democrat in Name only) just like a lot of electeds with a “D” after their names!
Sure, some people are asked not to show up in order to avoid an undesired vote but that is not the sole reason why someone is absent. In fact, the majority of the time the reason a rep is absent while running for office is because they are “Not Present.” I disagree with your logic that when a candidate is absent they don’t care about the issue. It means there was something that had a higher priority. Were you this critical of Obama’s record when he ran? Obama voted “Present” 129 times as State Senator. Did he conclusively not care about the issue at hand? We cannot have it both ways. We can’t criticize a candidate for doing the same thing another beloved candidate did. It makes us hypocritical.
As to your statement, Fletcher won’t ever be a life-long Democrat…so? Is there something more preferable to being born into a party affiliation and never challenging the ideals compared to someone who evolves during the process. The parties themselves have changed. If we prefer “life-long Dems” regardless of their positions, record or electability then we are administering a litmus test to future candidates and are no better than the Tea Partiers. More importantly, it implies that if you are a life-long Democrat then you somehow believe our values more consistently and strongly than a convert. We KNOW that isn’t true. We just asked a Life-long Democrat to resign because of his repeated sexual harassment against women. He is the same Democrat that was a Freedom Rider, one of the first new Dems of the 1960’s. The premises used to determine the best Democrats commits logical fallacies and renders candidates like Filner instead of Fletcher. Simply put, just because someone’s registration card says Democrat, doesn’t mean they embody our basic values. Never mind the fact that if we start to alienate the moderate Democrats when the majority of the electorate are left of center then we will go by the way of the Tea Partiers.
About Obama’s “RECORD”? YES I WAS!!!!!!!!! I worked very hard for him (in two states) in 2008, including contributing personal money! But I DID NOT vote for him in 2012 because I know that I was fooled 4 years earlier. Obama is miles closer to Ronald Reagan than he will ever be to FDR. Barack Obama is the perfect example of what I wrote. He missed votes to piss off as few people as he could and we wound up with the Wall Street President that was hiding in sheep’s clothing! I don’t think that I’m hypocritical! I may be stupid, as I was with Obama, but not hypocritical!
About “party”, I think that I agree with much of what you write! We have only one party in the USA today! The party of money and what it creates for us in candidates. That is why, I believe that voting record is the only thing we have left to cut through the crap that’s bought to “fabricate” a candidate for the widest polling! I don’t look at the “D”, “R”, or anything else after a candidate’s name anymore. I look at voting record and if there isn’t one, I follow the money!
I respectfully disagree. Obama represents the entire USA, not just the Dems or the special interest groups within the party. It is a shame that you thought someone like Romney would have been a better choice, regardless of who else you voted for. Using your philosophy on voting/not voting, your vote went for Romney instead of Obama.
As for looking at a record, understand that it isn’t as simple as that. Unless you read every bill that they voted for, against or present then you cannot accurately state that it was was a poor vote by a candidate.
You seem to use correlations in order to state causations and that is a logical fallacy. Simplifying a candidate down to your understanding of a voting record negates to take all the facts into consideration. That said, we have to decide how we are going to elect a candidate.
Question, if you don’t pay attention to a candidates R or D then why does it matter that Fletcher is not a life-long Democrat and Alvarez is? The two comments are inconsistent with each other.
Thank you (again) you help make my point!
To answer your question: Nathan Fletcher has an 18% lifetime voting record for working people!!!!!!!
“It is a shame that you thought someone like Romney would have been a better choice”. That comes out of your pen, NOT MINE!
I voted for the candidate that has the best platform and the best record for the middle-class and working people’s issues!!!! It was neither the “D” OR the “R”!!!!!
Did you know that Barack Obama raised more money from Bain Capital then did Mitt Romney?
If you can’t follow the record, “follow the money”!
Parsing my words to make your point merely defeats your objective. What I said was the irrespective of who you voted for, if you didn’t vote for Obama then it was a vote for Romney. That argument is based on your premise that if you abstain from voting for the viable candidate then you are voting for the “Conservative issue/candidate.” Thank you for making my point!
Again, you are committing a logical fallacy by stating that just because Obama raised more money than Romney somehow Obama is what?? Could it be that business is less partisan than grassroots voters? That perhaps the Bain wanted to be on the winning side of the election since Obama had a 5-6% lead for the majority of the election cycle.
I prefer direct evidence when making conclusions than mere correlations. Logic serves me better than conjecture or associations. To each his own!
I have no objective with this conversation! I have only ways of making my vote more effective for my needs and desires, and those of my family and comrades.
Follow the record, follow the money, or look for something else. The results are what we pay with!
The article provides a false choice; Alvarez or Fletcher. The viable options are Alvarez, Fletcher and Faulconer. If Fletcher must use his “lifetime record” regardless of his evolvement on issues, then so must all of the candidates. Thus, Faulconer has a 1.5% on Environmental issues which is deplorable. More over, the score card for what is considered anti-environmental includes decisions that would add to our deficit; i.e., Solar Power credit in 2009 when the entire country was running on huge deficits. It would not be responsible to spend additional money on solar power credits. It sounds like the author of this article would prefer Faulconer over Fletcher based on the criticism since Fletcher is the only person being attacked. If that is your position then I challenge your “environmental creds.” The ends don’t justify the means. What you write will hurt the Democrats moving past Nov 1, 2013.
Jim,
You did not mention in your article, Nathan Fletcher’s 86% CLCV voting record in his last year in the Assembly. You also failed to mention that Gabe Solmer is not just an “aide to Alvarez”, but his campaign manager.
I personally like a bunch of the candidates. Alvarez has been awesome for the environment and I supported his candidacy for City Council two years ago, despite my concerns with previous staff position with Senator Denise Ducheny (anti-environmentalist). Mike Aguirre was great for the environment as the City Attorney and very helpful on the La Jolla seals issue. Kevin Faulconer has been a consistent vote for protecting the seals and led the charge in passing Surfrider’s proposed resolution opposing the toll road through San Onofre State Park. Each of the candidates has had some positive and negative votes (ie. Alvarez just voted in favor of the Castlerock catastrophe.)
The San Diego League of Conservation Voters deliberations are strictly confidential. In fact, our vote (other than the outcome) is confidential, including whether it was a close vote or slam dunk. This policy protects board members relationships with friends, co-workers, and elected officials. Your article demonstrates the importance of such policy.
Unfortunately, you have gone beyond simply questioning the wisdom of our vote, to questioning the integrity of the board, and thus the people involved. Having actually experienced the deliberations, I have no doubt that each member weighed ONLY the considerations outlined in our bylaws prior to casting a vote. AND YES…we have different criteria than the Sierra Club. We collectively decided that Nathan Fletcher was the best candidate for advancing our agenda – – the environment agenda. Feel free to disagree with our judgment, but please do not question my intergrity.
Thank you, Jim Miller, for revealing the identities of the FletcherNathan-loving board members on the SD League of Conservation Voters. That such a group could find this guy an acceptable candidate for Mayor is no surprise. There is NO COMPARISON between this body of “conservation voters” and the San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club. I think it’s important to know what the labels stand for and may be covering up — in this case, it is a question of “intergrity.”