How sexy is the Republican Party right now? How's this for an answer: a rising political star and decorated Iraq War veteran says he's leaving the party because he's sick of the "games."
California Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, a candidate for mayor in San Diego who served for a decade in the Marine Corps, has developed the exasperating habit of actually working across the aisle with Democrats to achieve results. You can guess how popular that makes him in of today's GOP, where compromise is another word for treason. So today, Fletcher posted this video on his blog saying he's had enough and is running as an independent. Among the highlights?
"It’s become evident to me that actually focusing on a solution, of actually trying to get things done, isn't the preferred method of political party insiders."
"I believe it is more important to solve a problem than to preserve that problem to use in a campaign."
"I don't believe we have to treat people we disagree with as an enemy . . . I've fought in a war and I've seen the enemy. We don't have enemies in our political environment here."
"In today’s political environment, you're expected to play the game. . . I've been told by many in the Republican Party I'm not very good at this, and there's a reason: I could care less about playing games."
"I fought in a war, I put it all on the line for my country. I didn't go through all that to come back home and run for office, to play games."
Come on out, moderate, goal-oriented Republicans. We know you're out there.
Leave a Comment:
Please write an expose at least for your city.
Sounds good, but let's see how far his political career goes. We need a lot more of this, but unless there is an actual movement.... well.... same old, same old.
Our system is set up for a two party system. The GOP has really broke that system by continually going farther and farther away from center in the hope of moving the center.
I think there is room in the center for independents. However in practice the independent splits the vote.
In Australia they can vote for a sequence of people. If their first pick doesn't win outright they have a fall back pick. In this case a centrist GOP voters could vote independent and if he was not elected the he could cast his vote for the GOP right winger.
A democrat could also vote independent and cast a fall back for the dem. So first you have a vote and then throw out the bottom candidate and split his vote to the second choice.
Of course enact that would take "An Act of Congress" Which is the problem to start with.
We got the secret ballot from Australia (it was called the Australian ballot back in the day), so your thought isn't completely without merit, although that type of ballot makes more sense in a parliamentary system of government. I think we should have a parliamentary system, among the benefits of which is that parties sort by ideology, which doesn't happen in our system.
esponse to MMM2: There can be - we keep electing these people into office that REFUSE to comprimise and work in the best interest of "We the People"
Amen. If only the morons in Congress could grasp this concept.
I don't get the concept of running as an independent. Dems have a wide divergence of opinions in the party and dissent within the party is normal. In fact, lifelong Dems have come to accept dissent/different views within their own party. And the Dems are not purging their party. One can be a conservative Dem or a progressive Dem. Running as an independent is saying, I am leaving the Republican party, but I am keeping the door open to return. This assemblyman should know better that Republicans are most likely to say goodbye and don't come back.
More than one Democratic leader over the years has characterized getting the party to agree on anything as being like herding cats. So, Mike, your observation is absolutely accurate.
If he's running for mayor in San Diego, he might not get elected as a Democrat. I understand that San Diego is reliably red.
Ah, innocence.
No, taken in context, he is right. We have pretend enemies in our political environment, not real ones. The real ones, like the one Obama nailed, are Out There, out where those who generate pretend battles in defense of pretend principles never venture.
This man is a wonderful breath of fresh air, Republican, Democrat, or Indie, I like him and hope he can retain such honor in the political grist mill.
While I applaud Nathan Fletcher's decision to leave the GOP, before we get all starrey-eyed and "gooey-juicy" (to use Patti Stanger's term) over Mr. Fletcher, we should think about a couple of things in his video.
First, he talks about sticking to his political beliefs and principles. I assume the alignment between his beliefs and the GOP is what drew him to the Republican Party. And those principles include cutting taxes uber alles, slashing services and not worrying a whole lot about the poor, the needy, the elderly, the union worker and the young. He never mentions adopting a different political philosophy, just a different "approach."
Second, when he mentions Wisconsin and a Republican mayoral candidate's desire to turn San Diego into another Walkerstan, Mr. Fletcher talks about "riots" in the state over taking away collective bargaining and other pet projects of Republicans in Madison. Uhm, I paid a lot of attention to the public outcry at the time; after all, I was born in Milwaukee and lived in Wisconsin for 10 years. And while I remember huge demonstrations, I don't recall any riots; indeed, police chiefs around the state repeatedly complemented demonstrators on their orderliness.
While his disgust with partisan gridlock is admirable, his video is long on nice sounding phrases and very short on specifics as to where he would differ from the party he just left.
Ever get really mad and say or do things you would'nt normally do?That's exactly what happened in 2010.Voter's elected idiot's that have no business in an office that affect's the lives millions of people.At least we know of two people in the republican party that can see what others cannot.We should all applaude Nathan Fletcher and Olimpia Snowe for taking a stand against the madness.Now if the voter's will just rectify the mistake's made in 2010 we'll be a lot better off.
olympia snowe just played a moderate during elections. she never took a stand that i remember.
Mert: She resigned from congress did'nt she.For her thats a stand.
saying he's had enough and is running as an independent. Among the highlights?
"It’s become evident to me that actually focusing on a solution, of actually trying to get things done, isn't the preferred method of political party insiders."
I believe it is more important to solve a problem than to preserve that problem to use in a campaign."
"In today’s political environment, you're expected to play the game
I think he is becoming an independent (over becoming a Democrat) because the above statements of his goes for both parties - at least that's how I read it.
Actually the reason why "he is becoming an independent (over becoming a Democrat)" is mentioned exactly in the video: he still believe in the Republican values (or what used to be the Republican values), he just cannot stand the black and white game being played by the Republican party right now. Which is exactly what Olympia Snowe said.
As he said, for him, and for lots of people in this country, it is normal for the parties to disagree on somethings, but it is an entirely different thing to see everybody who disagree with you as enemy.
Any day where I see the headline, "Today, I'm Leaving the Republican Party," is a good day.
City offices in California are non-partisan, so legally everyone runs as an independent. This announcement may just mean that he's no longer interested in the legislature (or termed out) and thinks it's the best way to look good for his mayoral race.
Yes, this is just someone that has decided that the Republican name brand has gotten too bad to run on. I went to one of his town halls - he did a great job warming up the crowd, claiming his own mother doesn't like his politics. The thing that stood out most for me was his claim that it was wrong that a local family business that installs redwood patios had to pay almost 10% in taxes. He didn't distinguish between state and federal, let alone payroll and sales taxes. Fletcher claimed that less than 10% in taxes was too much and he didn't mean a small business but ANY business (Genentech came up). We were literally meeting 200 feet from the public elementary school that didn't have the funds to install air conditioning. Us parents all chipped in so that the kindergarteners weren't baking in 100 degree heat. I don't need a redwood patio, I do need access to education for my kids, decent roads, clean water, safe food and affordable health care. He's also against affordable health care - called it socialism right out of the box.
So, he's trading a dysfunctional and ineffective party for a functionally ineffective one. Good thing he's not "moving" to Wall Street.
Clone that dude!
It is refreshing to finally see a Politician who really cares. Keep up the good work Big Guy. Because of logistics I cannot vote for you but you have my support.
It's worth noting, he didn't leave the party because he disagreed with any Republican policy, he just didn't like their partisan tactics. He's still super conservative. Anti-Labor, no tax pledge, suspicious of LGBT candidates type conservative. See this letter he wrote while still trying to get the republican endorsement here in SD. http://sdrostra.com/?p=25657
Also, his wife was national press secretary for George W. Bush's presidential campaigns. http://nathanfletcher.com/about/mindy?_c=10glos82ijf986u
Don't let the (i) fool you.
My take exactly AJ.
AJer, you are not correct in your assessment of Nathan. I live in San Diego, am a registered Democrat, and prior to Nathan's change of party, he was going to be the first Republican I have voted for in decades. I am very interested in polics and governance and have attended many of the mayoral debates, so I wasn't prepared to support Nathan initially because of his party affiliation, but I came to see that he'd be a better mayor then the Democrat running (Filner), as I've seen Filner in private meetings and seen him dismissive and sarcastic with people who didn't agree with him. So while Filner's politics are closer to my own, I think he'd be a disaster as mayor since the success of a mayor in this town first and foremost involves getting people from different backgrounds and beliefs to work together to solve problems. I don't think Filner as the guy, and very much see that Nate Fletcher is.
I first saw Fletcher debate in a debate sponsored by a very liberal, pro-imigrant, pro-labor union group (including a lot of people I know personally.) Of the three Republicans running for mayor, Fletcher was the only one who showed up. Since Filner had a strong history of being pro-union it was his crowd. I gave Fletcher a lot of credit for showing up to what he knew would be an unfriendly group. He did not try to minimize his views that he knew the crowd wouldn't agree with, but did explain them. And he also gave his history of sponsoring legislation with Democrats which is quite considerable and earned him the scorn of the Republican Party.
Rather than be anti gay, he is well known to have made a speech in front of the CA Assembly supporting repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which did not make him friends in his own party; here's a link to the story from two years ago: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/may/13/fletcher-backs-end-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy/ .
He is obtained the support of the Log Cabin Republicans, which is the local gay Republican organization. When you consider that two of the three other candidates are gay Republicans, that's really pretty amazing. He does have the support of the Police and Lifeguard Unions.
He is also very concerned about homeless and disadvantaged. In short, he didn't make for a good fit for the present Republican party, although he might have been a better fit for the Republican Party of 50 years ago. I really see that he's more interested in providing good service than assending in a political career, although I'm sure he would have liked to do both, he made the decision he'd rather be true to his beliefs than play politics.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, and this is one act of desperation. It's ironic that Mitt Romney just came to San Diego for a visit. He apparently left his clone, a local political candidate who shifts according to the most favorable political winds. The record remains - that 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. Did I also mention that he voted against providing students access to drinking water during mealtimes? A profile in courage, this is not!
I too, am darn tired of the political games going on in Washington (or simply within the Republican Party). I spent 20 years in the military, at or below poverty wages for the better part of those 20, trying to "do my part" for this country. It demeans the sacrifices my family made (not to mention the broken promises regarding earned benefits), to see the Republicans' DESTROYING America JUST to make the President look bad.
Wheter I agree with him or not, KUDO's to Justice Roberts. He chose interpretation of law over partisan politics. So far as Boehner, McConnell, Issa, etal., goes - you've turned me off to the Republican Party! These "leaders" DO NOT REFLECT the interest of this country and these people certainly don't reflect the image I (personally) want to see todays youth looking to as roll models!
I'm from Washington State so, I can't vote them out of office (directly anyway). But, I can refuse to purchase anything produced in and/or use the services of any organization housed in their congressional districts/states or owned/led by those persons monetarily supporting these partisan polititians!
If you don't like what a polititian is doing (be he/she Democrat, Republican, or Independant) boycot those organizations with iin thier congressional district. If they are costing thier Congressional District monies/jobs, the constituants will vote them out.
Thank you Mike for everything you've done for our country. Have a wonderful 4th!