By Jim Miller
Everywhere you look, there is a different Nathan Fletcher. The magic never stops. You can see it in a recent mailer from the Municipal Employees Association (MEA) that touts the man with an 18% lifetime score on labor issues and a 36% Sierra Club score on environmental issues as someone with “a consistent progressive record we can trust.” The MEA magic comes by taking a handful of votes that Fletcher made while re-positioning himself for his mayoral run and giving them the tag line, “Show Us the Facts.”
Well, brothers and sisters, if you think that Fletcher is a progressive, with both a labor and an environmental record that actually comes in behind Republican Kevin Faulconer’s, you just don’t care about the facts. Particularly when you know that David Alvarez’s record on these issues is far superior to both of them.
You can see a different kind of magic in the Police Officers Association’s mailer promoting Fletcher as a candidate who is “standing up to special interests and extreme partisans,” hoping that the average voter is dumb enough not to consider that the cops’ union is just as interested a party as anybody else.
While I surely respect the public service of the police, this is double-think at its worst: a union praising someone with their own union’s endorsement for standing up to “partisans” like them while using the broad term “special interests,” a label usually favored by the right to attack unions, rather than “moneyed interests” or “downtown interests” which might indicate a more progressive critique. But, alas, such is not the case.
Yet more crazy double-think magic can be seen in the mailer funded by Jacobs and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union among others under the ironically named independent expenditure committee “Restoring Trust in San Diego.” This mailer asks the reader if she is “Tired of partisan gridlock in Washington D.C. and at San Diego City Hall?”
Then, after making the false claim that San Diego city government has been shut down by partisan gridlock just like D.C., this mailer directs the reader to “send a message to the politicians” by electing a mayor “who will put problem-solving ahead of politics.” The man for this job is, of course, our savior Nathan Fletcher.
The irony here is that the only candidate in this race who took the Norquist anti-tax pledge, stuck to it, and helped grind effective governing to a virtual halt in California is Nathan Fletcher. He was the rising star of Team Gridlock from his time working for the Republicans at the grassroots level, to his stint in Randy “Duke” Cunnigham’s office, to his tenure in Sacramento where he ably helped the Republicans’ efforts to “starve the beast,” to the moment he bragged about his support for an all-cuts budget to San Diego Republicans as he was asking for their endorsement in the last mayor’s race (I know, it was so far back in the murky reaches of the distant past—2011—that we can all barely remember it).
The “Restoring Trust in San Diego” mailer also attacks David Alvarez for his union support even as Fletcher has championed the few endorsements he has gotten from a handful of break away unions and welcomed the money that some of them are spending to promote him. More specifically, it cites the report card the Labor Council put out under the leadership of number one Fletcher fan Lorena Gonzalez (where Alvarez does quite well) as evidence of Alvarez’s “partisan” sins.
Along with Filner-baiting him (that’s odd, didn’t the Plumbers and Pipefitters support Filner as well in the last election?) this mailer also points to the fact that most of Alvarez’s support comes from, gasp, unions (128 of 135 San Diego unions are with Alvarez).
Interestingly, this bit of campaign razzle dazzle brought to us by this plutocrats and proletarians combo makes an effort to put Fletcher squarely in the middle, in between the supposed extremes of Alvarez and Faulconer.
Thus the MEA’s “progressive” Fletcher is transformed into the Jacobs’ model corporate Democrat with some help from Jacobs’ labor-bashing union allies.
So what’s a confused Democrat to think? Well, when one part of Team Fletcher is calling him a progressive while others on the same side are union bashing and praising his stand against partisan “extremists” and unions the astute observer might think that there’s something fishy about Nathan.
Or maybe it’s just more of that Fletcher magic: he’s a champion of working families one moment and someone who has his sugar daddy Jacobs attack unions the next; he’s a “progressive” in one mailer and a business Democrat in the next. Just close your eyes, listen to his seductive promises, and stop asking all those pesky questions. The Fletcher magic makes him all things to all people, so why not lay back and enjoy it? Maybe the magic is true.
Or perhaps double-think is not the exclusive right of the seemingly Republican-hating Republican Lincoln Club after all.
Let’s be real: just because the Lincoln Club is sending out mailers telling you about Fletcher’s wretched right wing record as a member of the wrecking crew, doesn’t mean it’s not the truth. Sure they are hypocritical scoundrels and will do an about face on November 20th when they start attacking Alvarez and his allies as the spawn of the devil if he makes the run-off, but they are correct when they point out that Fletcher was one of their ilk and still shares a lot of friends in their circles.
Perhaps that’s why the progressive Courage Campaign has taken shots at Fletcher recently for his connections to the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), who’ve brought us everything from the assault on collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin to Florida’s notorious “Stand Your Ground” law. And (full disclosure) my union, the American Federation of Teachers, is also going after Fletcher for his extensive right wing history and horrible record on education funding during California’s worst budget crisis in half a century. I wrote about why here.)
And finally, there is the man waiting for the run-off, Kevin Faulconer, who is busy doing his best Filner impression —minus the groping—in his television ads. Now, in his commercials, he loves neighborhoods (unless they are Barrio Logan where all those brown people live) and wants to fix your potholes and make sure you are getting the services you need (as long as that doesn’t take money out of the pockets of the downtown crowd).
He has his campaign spokesman telling folks he’s not your average Republican and soon he’ll be echoing Filner’s vision for the city even as he demonizes all those who once helped elect the former mayor.
And Faulconer hopes you won’t figure out that he’s exactly the same kind of Republican his friends in the Lincoln Club just got through telling you are the scum of the earth.
So go the increasingly surreal “Flauconer Follies,” a spectacle worthy of coverage by Will Ferrell with full mock seriousness.
Postscript: With Friends Like These . . .
To those of late who’ve been upset with me for criticizing Democrats, please note the reporting that Doug Porter beat me to last week. In one column, Doug broke the news that interim Mayor Todd Gloria, yes he’s a Democrat, hired the same privatization expert that Jerry Sanders admired. It turns out that this expert is straight out of the same network of right wing think tanks that spawned Carl DeMaio. Back in 2006 when I wrote about this for the CityBeat I noted:
In a recent CityBeat interview, Sanders downplayed what his “reforms” will mean for union workers, an astoundingly disingenuous comment given the fact that his plan to play the cops and firefighters against the municipal employees is straight out of the Claremont Institute’s dictum of “playing off one part of the welfare state against another.” Apparently, Sanders hoped that most readers would be unaware of the fact that his outsourcing plans are borrowed from the strategies of the most anti-union groups in the United States.
Finally, those who know the right should have seen a red flag when Sanders told CityBeat that his “ideas about privatization” and “the contracting out of city services” came from “Steve Goldsmith of Indianapolis.” Goldsmith literally wrote the book on the hard right’s vision for America’s cities. As Cokorinos writes:
“The Reason Foundation is not just about introducing privatized toll roads, eliminating environmental regulations or privatizing education…. [C]onservatism is undergoing a transition from being an oppositional movement to a power structure with a governing philosophy. Reason’s approach to this is the concept of “governing by network”-breaking open governing structures and inserting into them a dense complex of political and business relationships built up over the past two decades. It is spelled out most concisely in a book released in November 2004 written by former Indianapolis mayor Steven Goldsmith and former Reason privatization director William Eggers.”
If this sounds a little bit like bringing the K Street project, with its aim to privatize as much of the federal government as possible, to the municipal level, then you are on the right track. Confessore observed in 2003, “Republicans [at the federal level] are engineering a tectonic political shift in two phases. First, move the party to K Street. Then move the government there, too.” The central truth of “the emerging GOP machine” is that it is “premised on a unity of interests between party and industry.” When this kind of thought moves to the state and municipal level, you get government dominated by business interests to the point that the barriers begin to break down. Welcome to Indy by the Sea.
So who needs Republicans when the Democrats are happy to do their business for them?
Our esteemed Mr. Porter was also the only one in the local media to note how Scott Peters just made yet another abysmal vote, this time selling us down the river to Wall Street. As Doug aptly put it, “They’re ‘protecting’ us from proposed regulations that make a person selling you retirement products be honest about who’s paying the bill for that ‘free’ consultation.” Hence, just as Democrats are gearing up to work us into a lather about Carl DeMaio winning a House seat, Scott Peters is singing straight out of his song book. Of course we don’t want Carl DeMaio in the House of Representatives, but Peters has got to do better than this.
What’s the moral of the story? If you don’t want to get sold out by a corporate Democrat, don’t elect one. That’s not creating divisiveness within the ranks; it’s learning the lessons of history and trying not to repeat them.
P.P.S. The Perils of Polling
Speaking of history repeating itself, the San Diego Union-Tribune released a poll yesterday that had Kevin Faulconer surging way ahead with Fletcher dropping and Alvarez losing ground behind him. This, of course, is the same newspaper that put Carl DeMaio up by ten points during last year’s mayor’s race. If this is true, then start making your plans for the Faulconer inauguration party now. But, if we are to believe the tracking polls inside the campaigns, the story is quite different with Faulconer still ahead but with Alvarez trending upwards, pulling even to, or passing Fletcher.
Indeed, the poll released by Garin-Hart-Yang Research for Working Families for a Better San Diego shows Faulconer with a much smaller 34% followed by a dead heat between Fletcher and Alvarez with Alvarez at 22% and Fletcher at 21%. Aguirre trails them with just 5%. Thus, whoever makes it to the run-off would seem to have a good shot against Faulconer.
This would explain why the Neighborhood Market Association mailer goes after Alvarez as a guy who can’t win and the above-mentioned Jacobs mailers hit him as well. Generally campaigns don’t go on the attack if they think they’re way ahead. So it seems the Fletcher camp knows better than to believe the UT poll. Only time will tell if this is a second straight whopper of a bad poll from the UT or if we are really in for a return to business as usual in San Diego with an uninspiring Faulconer/Fletcher race that the plutocrats win either way.
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
First out of the chute was Bruce Coons as the savior of the progressive left in San Diego. Then he couldn’t raise any traction or money and he shriveled up and quit. Then it was Mike Aguirre who would take us to the promised land. He has never been a serious contender and although he writes long and boring answers to the SDFP questionnaire, he has no real substance and his ego and smugness are undermining any credibility he might have, just as it did in his last foray into the City Attorney’s race #2 once he had won it the first time, thus we end up with Goldsmith #1. Then you tout Alvarez as the knight in shining armor for Democrats coming to the rescue all the while choosing to demean the many unions that think he isn’t the man for the job both be record, personality, or experience. Yet nary a peep suggesting that a person can change, see the light, have an epiphany, seek redemption, be able to reach out to all with his varied experience, or actually lead San Diego down the path of continuing Filner’s dreams that we Democrats so much wanted and still yearn for.
Fletcher will do a superb job of leading our fine city and he is the only one who can successfully challenge that agreed louse Faulconer in the runoff. Fletcher’s past record as a Republican has no bearing on his current bid to be mayor of San Diego. That was different times and different locations. We who pay attention know that the Republican party puts enormous pressure on its members to toe their line just like the Democrats do and I am weary of hearing you and others bash , with such gusto and apparent glee , Democrats who are capable and committed, regardless of the duration of their party affiliation. We have for too long been our own worst enemies and it is now time to realize that the other side relishes our division and seeks to capitalize on it much to our detriment and demise. Ever since the “3 stooges” went on TV to castigate Filner and drive him from office the Democratic Party has been in flux and division. I see no merit in your also quite lengthy and boring piece in helping to heal any wounds or alleviate the confusion that has continued to ensue today from the Filner fallout.
When the primary is completed I wholeheartedly demand and expect those with differing views of OUR candidates to coalesce into one juggernaut and effectively defeat the real harbinger of backwards thinking, Faulconer. It is time to stop the endless rehashing of the “facts” to which you elude, and have mentioned many times before, and seek a more positive way to inform the readers of this progressive beacon and desist from causing the Democrats of all ilks from feeling demoralized and deflated thus leading to voter apathy and the ultimate failure of regaining the mayorship of San Diego, that is so important in today’s local society, which is the ultimate goal. Yes, I support Fletcher, and I don’t appreciate your slighting innuendos and name calling of my union, my decision, and my party affiliation as being either misguided, poorly thoughtout, bought and paid for, or capricious and frivolous.
I surely believe that a person can change, but changing, seemingly, every five minutes seems a little much to me. I like knowing or I like thinking I’m knowing somebody and I have no idea who Nathan Fletcher really is. I don’t see him caring, particularly, about me or barrios down the street from me. I haven’t seen him around.
Mr. Levy is really upset with your facts Jim. Unfortunately for him and Mr. Fletcher, they appear to be accurate. I do wish we would stop the name calling and stick to the facts. If you chose to believe in epiphanies and want to vote for a candidate that you believe has had one, mail in that ballot. But please do not denigrate the candidacies of Bruce Coons and Mike Aguirre. Bruce did not “shrivel up and quit”. He made a difficult decision to back the candidate closest to his agenda, David Alvarez with hopes that this progressive young Councilmember will be truly be able to carry forward an authentic “neighborhoods first” agenda. And it’s too bad you find Mike Aguirre’s answers to questions on the critical issues “long and boring” and lacking “substance”. Whoa! Mike Aguirre is one of, if not the most knowledgable and brilliant thinkers in the entire spectrum of our politicians. I hope he will see at this juncture, two weeks out in this supersonic race, that he can probably best serve the progressive agenda by helping Mr. Alvarez make it to the runoff.
As usual, Jay, you summarized my own thoughts in a far more succinct manner, especially about Bruce Coons and Mike Aguirre.
Dana Levy – you ask what Bruce Coons was thinking when he entered the race. He entered the race weeks before David Alvarez because he believed that important perspectives were not being articulated by the “leading candidates”. Once David Alvarez entered the race and Bruce met with him a few times to gauge his commitment to citizens and neighborhoods, Bruce withdrew so he wouldn’t further split the Democratic vote. He continues to act as an advisor to David Alvarez and his campaign.
You attribute such supreme intelligence to a guy (Aguirre) who couldn’t even see the writing on the wall when he was on the inside. What was Coons thinking when he ran? Was it that he should let all his supporters down by quitting when it got tough and that he should pick the best alternative to his own persona such as Alvarez since his supporters couldn’t make up their own minds. And, you also are right, Alvarez is young and not equipped to run the city. I was not questioning the voracity of Jim’s information but only the timeliness and effect it has on the actual people yet to vote. Lastly, the candidacies of both Coons and Aguirre speak for themselves. Weak and impotent with nothing to benefit anyone except dilute the vote and lend credence and support to the ultimate enemy, Faulconer and Co. If there isn’t a consensus of labor, business , and community activists then the progressive agenda started by Filner will not succeed. That is where Fletcher can and will be most effective. And, having a person in the mayors spot that actually listens to the entire Democratic population of our city while making the tough decisions is what Fletcher can and will do.
Dana, do you make the rent writing this shit for Fletcher?
Well Bob, thank goodness I am financially secure thanks to my union and its efforts on my behalf. No need for any renumeration from Fletcher or anyone else. Can’t say you send the same type message other than spouting blather about how Alvarez and/or others might be or are the savior incarnate of all us progressive free thinkers. And, apparently you are blessed with the unequivocal entirety of truth and can’t quite accept that others might disagree or have a differing view of reality. Stooping to name calling and derisive expletives must feed your inadequacies but does nothing to deter me from keeping the discourse straight and on message that Fletcher is a real and qualified candidate for mayor and is the best choice to lead us to the future success of all San Diegans everywhere.
Wow. I did not say Alvarez was “not equipped to run the City.” I did say he was young. I don’t like it when young people act like us boomers are out of season, but age can help or hinder depending on what you do with those years and who you listen to. David Alvarez listens and measures and acts. He is wiser than his age might suggest. And he has lived where environmental justice was not a just a campaign trope. He walks the talk. If he is elected, I believe he will listen, measure, act in his best assessment of the public interest.
It’s very simple: Fletcher will support the corporate agenda in San Diego especially Qualcomm’s corporate agenda. After all why else would they pay him $400,000. a year just to sit around? Alvarez will support the agenda of those who aren’t hotwired to the corporate agenda, namely those living south of I-8.
Good try but it has already been determined that Fletcher doesn’t earn half that amount and is not earning much at all during the run for mayor. What is the corporate agenda to which you speak? What is the actual corporate agenda of Qualcomm to which you elude? It is a multi million dollar company keeping hundreds of people working in San Diego with a locally based footprint. The Jacobs vision of a plan for our park was shot down and he had nothing to gain from it that I am aware of. We don’t need a recycled councilperson like DeMaio, Alvarez, Faulconer, or Gloria to run the entire city as mayor.
Alvarez must answer to somebody with money and I don’t see a big ground swell emanating from South of the I-8. Maybe he isn’t all that mainstream or middle of the road which is what it takes to run a large city. Everybody has a special interest and if you think the money guys like hoteliers and big business aren’t strong and important to the health of our city, you are fooling yourself. Who creates and keeps us all working? I don’t think that capitulating to all their one sided agenda is the answer either but what is needed is someone who can and will work with them and say no when needed, like Filner did and I expect Flether to do also (unlike Gloria who is doing his best to thwart and overturn every bit of progress achieved by Filner). Fletcher is a Democrat now and will listen to our concerns and act accordingly, not solely to people from the South of I-8, but the whole of the city, and having a voice on the inside is invaluable to get things across to the power dispensers. He is acutely aware of the needs of our neighborhoods and will continue the good fight to seek and bring to fruition improvements sorely needed in our struggling communities. Look at his list of endorsements and you see a really broad base of support from all walks of life and life experiences.