Editorial:
Of the four main candidates running for mayor, three are easily definable, not by what they stand for or for their vision for the city of San Diego, but by the groups that they are associated with. These three candidates, for good or bad, are defined by the coalitions that are looking to put them into office.
Kevin Faulconer is the Republican, the good old boys’ choice for mayor. Behind closed doors, the established Republican hierarchy debated who would have the best chance to win an election. Their choice: Falconer. The big loser in this coronation process was Carl DeMaio. DeMaio came in second to Bob Filner just a few months prior, but he was deemed too polarizing. In true Republican fashion, once the choice was made, all other Republicans stepped aside, clearing the field for Faulconer.
Falconer has been described as a Carl DeMaio with a smile when it comes to policy issues. In regards to the Hispanic community, he does not have much to show for his support of this community. He is for managed competition, against raising the minimum wage, and he doesn’t support the Barrio Logan community plan. He hopes to gloss over his lack of vision for the Hispanic community by brandishing his bilingual chops and speaking Spanish whenever he thinks it will benefit him.
Nathan Fletcher is a little trickier to pinpoint, but what it eventually boils down to is that he is about Nathan Fletcher. Fletcher has a lot going for him. He is handsome, an Army veteran, charismatic, and intelligent. In his campaign for mayor the first time around, against Filner and DeMaio, he made a calculated move by leaving the Republican Party and going independent. At that time it made sense as he presented himself as the logical alternative to the partisan politics of DeMaio and Filner.
This Party switch, though, was more about Fletcher trying to find traction for his floundering campaign than an ideological shift in philosophy. The Republican Party threw their support behind Carl DeMaio, which left Fletcher with little support or money to count on.
After losing in his first run for mayor, Fletcher changed his party affiliation once again to become a Democrat. In less than a year, Fletcher changed political affiliations and we assume political philosophy, a flip, then a flop, and then another flip. We find this a bit confusing. He once described himself as a life-long Republican, and was a darling of the Republican Party. But, what are his principles, what does he philosophically believe, what would we really be getting here? As we look at it seems more and more that Nathan Fletcher is about Nathan Fletcher and his whole focus is on getting elected even if it requires he sell out his principles with his party switching.
When Fletcher first switched to independent it struck a note with many dissatisfied with their choice for mayor. They saw Fletcher as a true opportunity to break down the partisan bickering. Some of San Diego’s political movers and shakers joined with him, most importantly billionaire Irwin Jacobs. Including the Jacobs’ support, there is a loose coalition of elected officials and unions, with Assemblyperson Lorena Gonzalez being the glue that holds this coalition together. The questions is can we trust him, will he stay the candidate that is voted into office or will he change over time?
The final nail in the coffin regarding Fletcher has been his total lack of support for the Hispanic community. As an elected Assembly member, Fletcher voted contrary to the Hispanic community. He supported the Republican platform of a stronger border security, no pathway to citizenship, and the voted against the Dreamers. In his first run for mayor, just a few months ago, he received the strongest of endorsements from Pete Wilson, the anti-Hispanic governor.
In the short time that David Alvarez has served on the city council, we have been impressed with this young politician. We believe the future is bright for Alvarez, just not right now.
Alvarez is young and has only served on the city council for three years.
When Alvarez first ran for office he made a promise to the community to serve two terms. The Eighth District has had a run of politicians getting elected and then moving on in their first term of office, leaving the District with no continuity. Alvarez acknowledged the turnover in his district and made a promise of continuity to the voters. We are disappointed that Alvarez has not lived up to this promise.
Alvarez’s youth and inexperience has also been noted in debates where at time he appears indecisive and his manner does not instill confidence.
Alvarez support is derived from the Unions and if he is elected he will be beholden to the Unions!
The difference between Mike Aguirre and the other candidates is that he is not beholden to any group, organization, or union.
This is not an anomaly. Aguirre has always been his own man and in the past this has caused him problems and a perception of him being a loose cannon. If you take a good look at what he did accomplish as a City Attorney, in the most difficult of times for the city with the Pension debacle, Aguirre took the bull by the horns and brought about positive change that saved the city millions. Aguirre changed the whole culture of the City Attorney’s office to one that represents the citizens, versus the old system of being a rubber stamp for the city council.
Aguirre has stood with the Hispanic community, changing the way elections are held in the City of San Diego. This has empowered the Hispanic community.
He represented Cesar Chavez pro bono in court. He has fought to bring about fair representation to the Board of Supervisors.
In this campaign, Aguirre is focused on the City’s biggest problem which continues to be the Pension issue. He is addressing the issues of water rates and electric rates, and he is focused on raising the revenue for the city. Meanwhile, the other candidates are talking about neighborhoods which makes for good sound bites. In regards to the big issues such as Pension reform and how they will raise the money to accomplish all the neighborhood goals, the three other candidates have glossed how they will fulfill their promises
Aguirre is the underdog in this race, we understand this, but endorsements should not be about selecting the likely winner. Endorsements should be a recommendation for the person who in the long run will be best for the city.
With the mayor’s office now a strong mayor form of government, the role of mayor has changed to more and more reflect the thinking of a CEO, someone who has to manage billions of dollars, thousands of employees, deal with hundreds of vested groups and organizations, and see that the city has the money to accomplish its goals. The only person who has this type of experience, education, and knowledge is Mike Aguirre.