I generally don’t comment on the races my company is involved in. I figure that we all read enough propaganda in our day to day lives, and a spoon full more doesn’t really help the rest go down any better. That being said I fell obliged to publish the following and say for the record ‘say it ain’t so, Nathan Fletcher’:
“To that end, Fletcher did emphasize that the Mayor’s election in San Diego was a non-partisan election. He also stated that his reasons for being in the Republican Party, primarily that in a partisan climate he had to pick one out of the two and that he supported some of the core economic issues and the message of enabling access to the American Dream inherent to the Republican Party. Fletcher spent a lot of time detailing instances on how he broke away from the party line of issues he had to vote for in the California Assembly, and explained that he was unafraid to do so.” Read the whole post here.
It’s no secret that my company runs one of Nathan Fletcher’s competitors for Mayor of San Diego. It’s no secret that both my partner Jason Roe and I also have a very long relationship with Nathan. One of Nathan’s first jobs was for Jason. I was one of the consultants on Nathan’s race for Assembly. It was Nathan who introduced Jason to the adaption provider where he eventually got Jackson. Of course in working on opposite sides in this race there have been less pleasant interactions.
That all said, I’m hoping this is not an accurate reflection of what Nathan said. Has Nathan voted considerably less pro-business and certainly less socially conservative than I would have guessed he would when he was elected? Yes of course. Is the San Diego Mayor’s race nonpartisan? Of course. But to imply that he went through some sort of decision making process as to decide which party to run as a candidate for prior to his Assembly run, and then narrowly went Republican is pandering to a more liberal audience at worst, the authors exaggeration at best. Say it ain’t so, Nathan.