U-T San Diego editor Jeff Light recently revealed a strong Republican bias going in to the city’s 2012 mayoral race, according to reports from KPBS News. Recently, Light was recorded in conversation with Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, saying that the latter’s decision to leave the Republican party puts the paper in a difficult position and explaining that the editorial board does not want to see Democratic candidate Bob Filner make it through the general election.

Light said that the general election is likely to “be far more favorable to Filner,” and that he and members of the U-T editorial board “certainly want to keep that from happening.”

He added that Fletcher’s decision to leave the Republican party puts the paper in a difficult position, and explained that the U-T can no longer support Fletcher’s mayoral bid without compromising its long-standing Republican traditions.

In response to the recorded conversation, Point Loma Nazarene University journalism professor Dean Nelson says that Light’s clear bias regarding the general election is surprising, and may damage the paper’s credibility.

“If it was just their editorial page people, that’s one thing,” Nelson told KPBS. “But this is the person who oversees all of their news coverage. So that’s why I found this particularly disturbing.”

Nathan Fletcher

The Mayor’s Race

For what will likely be San Diego LGBT Weekly’s final mayoral Q&A, Nathan Fletcher came to our offices in Banker’s Hill to be interviewed on vital topics ranging from the local economy to the city’s wide array of social issues. Fletcher had a one-word answer to the big question: “Do you support same-sex marriage?” His answer was “Absolutely.”

LGBT Weekly: I know you’ve been asked why you made the switch from being a Republican candidate for mayor to an Independent. Why did you join the GOP to begin with?

Nathan Fletcher: There are issues where I probably wind up more with the Republican approach – economic issues maybe.

Taxes?

Competitiveness of the workforce; yes maybe taxes. I think when I was a little guy growing up the defining president of my time when I was little was President Reagan. He really restored faith in what it felt like to be an American. And I feel he really shared the working-class, blue-collar family values of my upbringing. You know, my dad was a factory worker. I vividly remember Reagan Democrats and the vision of the American Dream and opportunity that he represented.

Were your parents Reagan Democrats?

Yes they were.

Was your dad a union worker?

Yes he was.

That’s an interesting dichotomy in the sense that people who belong to unions are traditionally Democrats; yet he was a Reagan Democrat, which meant he voted Republican.

Yeah, and I think it was that and heading into military service in the Marine Corps that (led to my becoming a Republican).

But what the GOP has become is different than it once was. There used to be a place for socially progressive; environmentally conscience; fiscally responsible – pragmatic members that actually want to govern and make a real difference. That’s not the case anymore.

It’s been almost forty years since Ronald Reagan said the same thing of the Democratic Party – that he didn’t leave it; the Democratic Party left him.

Part of my frustration has been (the GOP’s) adherence to the far right. For example on what should be easy issues like (the repeal of) Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I was in a meeting with all the Republicans and they asked me, “Are you going to speak on this issue?” And I said, “Yeah, I’m going to speak on it.”

Did you get any support from your former party on DADT?

They said that was great; and wanted to be sure I was going to speak for keeping the policy. I told them, “No, I’m going to speak from a different perspective.” They said, “No, you can’t do that.” I said, “Well, sure I can.” There was this great consternation; they wanted me to consider just being absent (the day when a resolution supporting the repeal of DADT was to be considered). That struck me as this strict adherence to the far right and that’s bad.

The other thing that’s bad is that there’s not a desire, even when the principles line up, there’s not a desire to solve problems. It’s just games-playing. It’s political brinksmanship. So, I go work out a tax-reform deal with (Gov.) Jerry Brown to close a loophole that only benefits large out-of-state corporations. Now closing that loophole by itself would be great for California. It makes California more competitive. California’s CEOs like Paul Jacobs of Qualcomm, Greg Lucier of Life Technologies; I could go on and on – they said please do this because the loophole gives our out-of-state competitors an unfair advantage. Boom. We close it, but we actually give the revenue to provide some relief to small businesses. That brings a billion dollars in new revenue into the state. Jerry Brown agreed that we would cut taxes for small businesses that are hiring because that gets people back to work; we would lower the sales tax on durable goods to encourage manufacturing. We’re losing those manufacturing jobs and those are the jobs of the middle class. And then we would give relief to the working poor, who have been hit hardest by the recession.

Did that bill make it to the floor?

Oh, I got it out of the Assembly – but barely. But it got killed in the Senate. Republicans opposed it. Republicans came up and said, “Wow, we’re going to make California more competitive by eliminating the loophole that encourages businesses to get out of California; we’re going to cut taxes on small businesses, manufacturers and the working poor.” And they said, “What a great thing.” I said, “So, you’re going to vote for it?” And they said no.

Because it takes away one of their foils against Democrats?

We can’t make Jerry Brown look good.

So, along that line; you have been criticized by some of the candidate asseessments that have been put out by other campaigns concerning you. We’ve looked at those, and it’s based upon two tax votes and two LGBT-equality votes. I understand what the two LGBT-equality votes are about: You voted to allow transgender people get their driver’s license in their new gender, and you voted for the FAIR Edtucation Act, which says, LGBT People do exist and our history can be taught in schools. Tell our readers about the two tax (votes) …

I’ve been scorecarded by so many different organizations. One of those was the “single sales” tax (a law that San Diego’s biotech consortium, Biocom credits Fletcher for helping to get passed, which rewards companies for capital investment for things like building constructed in the state – link to a previously published article about the so-called single sales tax). The other one I think they’re probably talking about is one I took a temendous amount of grief for – Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS, which basicaly was just making a committment to renewable energies. People like (Councilman Carl) DeMaio and others have mischaracterized those two. They’re both job creators that make California a more competitive place. There are so many places where I go in the state where industries like soytech are hiring people.

With the advantage California has in the cleantech business, how would you work here in San Diego to capitalize upon that?

Well, we have a huge opportunity in those fields. We already have the beginnings of clusters in renewable energy, algae-based energy, solar, and so many other ways. The whole thought of being the world’s most innovative city in terms of changing and rebranding our image is about really nurturing an culture of innovation and cultivating those innovative jobs. You do it by streamlining your regulatory process. You know, Sapphire Engergy has an incentive to move here. I ask so many CEOs what they need to creat jobs. They say, “we have the jobs; we need a trained workforce.” So it’s about education. We’ve called for the creation of a STEAM Academy – science, technology, engineering, the arts and math as a feeder school to get those students transfered into those programs in the UC system.

Would your STEAM Academy be located in the southern part of the city?

I don’t care; it doesn’t matter where it’s located.

Would it be a priority to make easily accessible to economically challenged students?

Sure. I mean the problem with our education system today is we’re not producing the workers we need for today’s market. The second problem is that the education system is the equalizer that get’s you to the American Dream. I mean, we don’t promise you equality of outcome. We don’t give everyone the same size house; we don’t even promise you equality of ease (to get an education). You know, neither of my parents went to college. It was harder for me and my brother. That’s OK; we’re not complaining. It will be easier for my boys and that’s good. But we do promise you equality of access; and we’re not providing that now in the public schools. When 58 percent of Latinos can’t read at grade level, that’s immoral.

…

We have a city that has not seen an equal distribution (of resources). You go to the community in the southeast San Diego community of Stockton; they don’t even have street lights. Now, can you imagine if Kensington didn’t have street lights? We can’t even fathom that. And I’m not mad at Kensington; don’t get me wrong: I love Kensington, and I’m glad they have street lights. My point is, how do we have a city where one community has been allowed to fall so far behind? Barrio Logan hasn’t had an updated community plan since 1978. I was talking to a guy with a restaurant in San Ysidro; Don Felix has been trying for like 20 years to get a sidewalk fixed. Our whole city has infrastructure problems. As mayor, I’m going to focus on rebuilding the entire city.

You talk about the city in a wholistic way; (Congressman) Bob Filner talks about it in terms of neighborhoods. Are you two talking about the same approach?

Yeah; but I am talking about neighborhoods too.

Do you think Downtown is done?

Well, no area is “done.” But I think Downtown has had a disproportionate share of prosperity and I think our focus has to be on the entire city; not just on one area. Now, where Bob and I may disagree in tone might be that I believe you rebuild the city by lifting up the entire city, not be dismantling one part of the city. So, I’m not going to pit one neighborhood against the other.

Let’s talk a little bit about the state’s budget. Are you in support of Gov. Jerry Brown’s current plan?

No.

You’re not. Why not?

Well there are a couple of things that are wrong with it. One of the biggest problems we have in the tax code is volatility. It is tremendously volatile and creates this boom-and-bust cycle. His plan only adds to that volatility.

In what way?

Well it increases taxes on the most volatile aspects of the econonomy – those at the top. I don’t think adding taxes to a broken tax code is the way to solve a systemic problem.

Do you think the state takes in enough revenue in terms of a percentage of the economy.

I think the state needs to grow; then it will take in a significant larger amount revenue. But you do that by reforming the tax code by  actually incentivizing growth through the tax code. There are also a lot of simplification of the regulatory process that will help grow the economy. One thing I know is that the public has been very clear about over and over and over again: that they’re not going to pay more.

Well that’s kind of a universal dynamic. No one ever wants to pay more taxes. Isn’t it generally the responsiblity of leaders to say, “Look, here’s what we need to provide the government you say you want?” It’s the free-rider concept, which says everyone’s going to answer the question, how much would you like to pay? with an answer lower than what would be their proportional share in hopes that someone else will pick up the difference. Relating that to a local issue: pension reform. Do you you support the pension-reform plan? Won’t people under 55 be cut off and, in affect, be paying for the pensions of older retirees to remain higher by giving up retirement money from their pensions?

I support pension reform. Under this plan, as it was explained to me by TIAA Creff, a well-respected annuity company, employees with pensions will get seventy-five percent income replacement. Seventy-five percent; that’s good … When you ask employees if they’d rather have a five-year freeze on earning pension money from salary increases or not have a job, they overwhelmingly choose pension reform. The city made a series of very bad decisions. In the 1990s, they made the decision to finance a stadium and a convention center with pensions money. They some people in upper management  retire early and take more money than they should have. That all created a $2.1 billion liability that everyone agrees we have to address.

You’re not saying that bulding the ballpark and the convention center were bad ideas.

(Emphatically) No; but it’s a bad idea to under fund the pension system to do it.

How would you have done it?

Well, I don’t know. I wouldn’t have taken money out of the pension system. I would have figured something else out.

Would you not have raised any taxes to do it?

There’s ways to do it. Taking money out of the pension system is just as bad as making bad decisions to give workers overly generous pensions …

Who do give credit for the pension reform plan?

The mayor. This has been the most contentious issue for the last ten years. But if I’m mayor, we’re going to address this problem and we’re going to move on. We have to move on because there are other problems in the city that we need to address. I’m not going to spend the next decade talking about pensions. When are we going to talk about rebuilding our economy; when are we going to talk about rebuilding our education system; when are we going to talk about acquiring new open spaces; when are we going to talk about dedicating canyon lands; about getting into compliance with the federal Clean Water Act; about rebuilding our neighborhoods and our parks and making our communities safe with the right amount of public safety resources..?

Mayor Sanders has been a leader in the fight for marriage equality. He’s been the co-chair of a group called Mayors for the Freedom to Marry. Will you pick up that mantel?

I would do the same.

You would take a place in that campaign?

Yes. When an issue’s important, you have to be willing to take a stand and speak out for it. When I gave the floor speach on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, some people were very upset. But set that aside. There was an entire group of people who said, “hey, I’ve never thought about it. I’ve always been opposed to it. I listened to what you said and I thought about it; and you now what? You’re right.”

Those were Republicans?

Yeah. They just had to hear it from a different perspective. The problem in politics is people only listen to one side. They’re afraid to listen. People tell me their side of an issue and I think it makes sense. They want to know if I’m going to support it, and I tell them I don’t know yet, because I have to listen to the other side and see what they have to say. As mayor I’ll do the same.

I also had people say, “Hey, I’ve always believed the same thing, but I never felt like it was OK to say it out loud. But if a combat-veteran Marine from San Diego can say, then I can certainly say it.”

That’s the big issue for us: marriage-equality. And just to make absolutely clear, you would stand up and fight for it?

Absolutely.

What about ENDA? The Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Would you actively push for congress to pass ENDA?

Yes. I mean I’d have to look at the policy in detail. But in principal, yes.

By supporting our community in those LGBT-specific issues, you’ve eliminated a whole set of other LGBT-equality questions. Those two issues cover many sets of equal rights. So let’s move on. Do you support the Dream Act?

My problem is when states come in and try to take on federal issues on their own. I opposed Prop. 187. I oppose what they did in Arizona. It was wrong. I can support a federal Dream Act.

Given your recent change to Independent status, will you support someone in the presidential election.

I don’t anticipate being active in that election. I’m focused on local issues.

Thank you for the interview.

NOTE: While there are four major candidates for mayor, San Diego LGBT Weekly has only published three Q&As (including this one) to help voters in the LGBT community decide who’s right for them. We expect candidate and city councilman Carl DeMaio will continue to not accept or acknowledge our several, multi-modal invitations to be a part of this series. The invitation stands. And, as we’ve previously committed: Neither this editor nor my publisher would write any commentary relating to Councilman DeMaio in the issue that would include his interview. – Ed.

Richard Grenell

Recently appointed Mitt Romney spokesperson Richard Grenell has resigned from the GOP hopeful’s presidential campaign, citing pressure from anti-gay conservatives as a primary motivator for his decision.

Grenell, who is openly gay and a staunch Republican, was hired to assist Romney in articulating his foreign policy message along the campaign trail. However, according to Washington Post opinion blogger Jennifer Rubin, Grenell stated that he found his “ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues.”

In his resignation statement, Grenell expressed his appreciation of Romney’s “clear message” that “being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team” – a stance that lies in direct contrast to that expressed by many social conservatives.

Those who opposed Grenell’s position with the Romney campaign argued that there was no way the foreign policy spokesman could be trusted to stick with the GOP for the long haul – especially, as Matthew J. Frank recently wrote in the National Review, if Obama ultimately speaks out in favor of gay marriage.

Upon receiving Grenell’s resignation, Romney and his campaign managers made unsuccessful attempts to keep him on board. Today, they responded that they are “disappointed” in Grenell’s decision.

“We wanted him to stay because he had superior qualifications for the position he was hired to fill,” said Romney’s campaign manager Matt Rhoades.

Richard Grenell has made no further comments on the matter at this time.

President Obama made jokes -- but also struck a serious note -- at the White House Correspondent's Dinner/Source: The White House

Saturday, April 28 saw the occasion of the annual White House Correspondents Dinner, at which President Obama opened the festivities with a humorous stand-up routine that left few of his opponents unscathed.

The Boston Globe reports that the President also made fun of himself, as well as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (who he accused of “drunk texting him from Cartagena,” in reference to a recent photo of Clinton dancing, beer-in-hand, while in Colombia with the president for the Summit of the Americas).

Purportedly, Obama even joked about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – saying that he would replace the ban against LGBT service members with “It’s Raining Men.”

Among the president’s other targets were his presumed rival for the 2012 election, Mitt Romney, and the Republican members of congress (who Obama thanked “for taking time from their exhausting schedule of not passing any laws” to attend the evening’s event). However, the president also touched on more serious matters, as he encouraged audience members to remember two great journalists — Anthony Shadid of the New York Times and Marie Colvin of the Sunday Times of London — both of whom died while in Syria covering recent uprisings.

President Obama’s remarks were followed by comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s headliner performance. Proceeds from the evening’s dinner will go to journalistic scholarships and awards.

Email invitation to Roger Hedgecock’s fundraiser for Carl DeMaio

Some people think that I am not a supporter of Carl DeMaio. The truth is that I cannot stomach those who put their personal career above the well-being of our community. DeMaio recently stated that he is not running on social issues; this is evidenced by his fundraiser hosted by former mayor of San Diego, Roger Hedgecock (see invitation).

As I previously stated in my message in our October 20, 2011 issue (issue 49) Roger Hedgecock is now a right wing, conservative radio talk-show host. Hedgecock has made many attacks on the LGBT community on his talk show, as well as in print publications and during interviews.

Infamously, in 1994 Hedgecock petitioned for his group, the “Normal People,” to march in the Pride parade. Due to his group’s intention to protest and disrupt Pride, the Pride Committee refused his request, resulting in a lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court. Hedgecock argued that the First Amendment guaranteed him the right to participate in the parade, and accused the LGBT community of discriminating against his group because they were heterosexual.

Hedgecock also used the LGBT community as a wedge issue during the Gov. Gray Davis recall election stating that Davis was going to sign a bill giving rights to “transsexuals … because he (Davis) needs the radical leftist gay and lesbian community to support him.”

Here are just a few of Hedgecock’s other notable quotes:

“This gay thing has gone too far. These activists think that beyond tolerance they can club 99 percent of Americans who aren’t gay into acceptance and approval … when you try and get me to say that gay sex is the same as any other kind of sex – that’s not the way I feel about it, and I don’t mind saying so.”

“The only reason gays want to be in the military is because ‘that’s where the boys are.’”

Roger Hedgecock

“Just as illegal aliens seem to have more ‘rights’ than citizens do, homosexuals claim their ‘civil rights’ prevail over everyone else’s civil rights.”

That last quote is from 2009. Exactly who would be interested in paying $150 to attend this event for Carl DeMaio hosted by this homophobe? Earlier this year, I publicly asked DeMaio to repudiate Hedgecock’s endorsement; but what did our community get – a doubling down by DeMaio of his acceptance of homophobe Hedgecock’s support. I considered attending but could not stomach the concept of giving $150 to stand around with such an anti-LGBT bigot. Of course, this could be one of the hearts and minds that DeMaio believes he is changing by remaining in the Republican Party.

I would love for San Diego to have its first LGBT mayor but not at the expense of LGBT equality. What say you DeMaio?

STAMPP CORBIN

PUBLISHER

San Diego LGBT Weekly

LGBTweekly.com

–

Cover photo credit: CarlDeMaio.com

Photo Credit: 10News

Mayoral candidate and state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher has doubled his support for the San Diego mayoral race after dropping the GOP according to a recent scientific poll conducted by 10News. The announcement is fresh on the heels of Fletcher’s announcement two weeks ago that he will no longer act on behalf of the Republican party, acting instead as an Independent in San Diego’s mayoral race.

After asking San Diegans, “If the primary election for San Diego mayor were today, who would you vote for?” respondents chose Carl DeMaio first with a 28 percent vote followed by Fletcher with a close 26 percent, essentially placing both candidates at a near-tie. Bob Filner captured 20 percent of the vote while pushing Bonnie Dumanis father back with only a 13 percent vote ratio. Ten percent of San Diegans said they were undecided.

The poll varies widely from one released 10 weeks ago showing significant gains for Fletcher. Compared to the previous survey, Fletcher has doubled his support from 13 percent to his current 26 percent.

The poll rotated candidate names as the question was asked to ensure neutrality.

Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher (L) and Rep. Bob Filner

Why I stood up during the debate …

American journalism is sometimes referred to as “The Fourth Estate” – a fourth quasi-branch of government – more specifically, a fourth check-and-balance on the power of our government and elected officials. In fact, the role of the press as defender of freedom is enshrined within the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thom Senzee

But constitutional inclusion comes with special responsibilities. During my 17 years as a journalist, I’ve done my best to abide by three rules. Rule No. 1: Do no harm. Rule No. 2: Get the whole story – and get it ethically. Rule No. 3: Never become the news.

Apparently, I broke Rule No. 3 last week. As San Diego CW 6 television news put it after the LGBT Mayoral Candidates Forum at The Center, “One reporter interrupted the debate to show his displeasure that candidate DeMaio planned to leave early without answering questions.”

After asking an organizer if members of the press should fill out a question card, I was led to believe that reporters would be availed of a question period before the candidates left the stage. I was told that I should NOT fill out a question card. That made sense because it would be unorthodox to ask reporters to fill out audience question cards at a community forum. Restraining reporters from follow-up questions would, at minimum, be outside First Amendment norms.

As the clock ticked on, it became clear to me that something was amiss. When I sought clarification, I was told, there would not be a question period for the media until after the debate – until after the leading mayoral candidate, City Councilman Carl DeMaio, had departed.

Prior to the debate, there had been a lot of speculation about DeMaio planning to leave 15 minutes early, thereby sidestepping media questions that would have been posed while he was on stage before a mostly LGBT audience. In fact, as San Diego LGBT Weekly had reported would happen, it was announced at the start of the debate that the councilman would indeed leave early.

DeMaio ostentatiously ordered an aide, twice, to inform his next engagement he would be 15 minutes late. That was after Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher passionately called DeMaio to account for increasing his chances of obtaining the county Republican Central Committee’s endorsement by lambasting Fletcher for supporting LGBT rights.

With the realization that DeMaio was, whether by design or by default, effectively pulling a fast one on our community – and feeling the weight of my responsibility to act as an agent of the Fourth Estate, i.e., as the questioning voice of our community, I fought my personal fear of embarrassment and rose to ask Mr. DeMaio two questions: First, would he be seeking the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans? The LCR rescinded its endorsement of Fletcher who earlier that day had left the GOP. Secondly, did DeMaio regret his campaign’s use of the Assemblyman Fletcher’s support for LGBT equality as a means of winning a party endorsement?

Remember my three rules? Do no harm; get the story ethically; don’t become news. I went back to refresh my understanding of the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics. As far as “doing no harm,” SPJ doesn’t go as far as saying journalists must do no harm. Rather, SPJ instructs us to “minimize harm.”

Regarding “getting the story ethically,” SPJ goes further, saying journalists must not only be ethical. They must also be courageous. From SPJ: “Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.”

As far as not becoming the news, that’s not specifically addressed by SPJ; it’s just something every journalist knows. However, as an aide to a member of Congress told me after the “incident,” if a reporter asking a question is news, then we’ve got a problem in San Diego.

My only regret is that I cowered when I was admonished by a row of DeMaio supporters sitting in front of me to “sit down,” because, as one of them yelled, “No one wants to hear what you have to say.”

Thom Senzee

Editor

LGBT Weekly social media reporter, Will Rodriguez-Kennedy, who is a veteran of the Iraq War and who is Puerto Rican, was likened to a feces-throwing monkey in a Twitter post from an account owned by the life partner of the leading San Diego mayoral candidate, City Councilman Carl DeMaio.

The tweet in question contained a link to a Hulu.com video of a Saturday Night Live skit entitled “Monkeys Throwing Poop at Celebrities.”  Historically, monkeys have been used to demean people of color. The full text of the tweet, which has since been removed from SDGLN.com’s Twitter feed, read: “THIS JUST IN: Video of @willrk787 reacting to our posting of@gustafsoncraig‘s great piece on DeMaio today http://ow.ly/a26PL .”

The link at the end of the post leads not to the referenced article by San Diego Union Tribune writer, Craig Gustafson about DeMaio’s  tough childhood, instead taking followers of @SDGLN to the scatological monkey-skit video. Notably, “@willrk787″ is Rodriguez-Kennedy’s Twitter handle.

“(I was) very surprised,” said Rodriguez-Kennedy, who works for LGBT Weekly and once worked for Carl DeMaio (DeMaio is one of two gay candidates in the race). “It’s unusual for a publication to use their official Twitter feed to attack someone who is not running for office – particularly in (such) an offensive way.”

SDGLN.com is LGBT Weekly’s closest local competitor; and it is no secret that a spirited rivalry exists between the two organizations.  The former is owned and operated by a man with whom politician DeMaio is, as he describes it, in a “committed relationship.” Both SDGLN and the DeMaio campaign were asked to comment on the incident. However, SDGLN’s owner, Johnathan Hale, pointedly hung up the phone three times when we called for comment, once saying “I don’t talk to you.” SDGLN’s editor was also contacted by voicemail and email, but has yet to reply. Likewise, there has been no response from Carl DeMaio for Mayor campaign manager, Ryan Clumpner.

Asked how he felt when he read the Twitter post, Rodriguez-Kennedy said: “I was pretty mad about it. I actually was called ‘monkey’ in elementary school because I looked darker and had big ears – still do. So, it wasn’t something I was going to just laugh about.”

However, Rodriguez-Kennedy is giving SDGLN.com the benefit of doubt about whether or not the tweet was intended as a racial slur.

“I don’t think it was intended to be racist,” he said, adding that there may be a double standard in how the organization treats insults in its reportage.

“I think it just came out that way,” he said. “And regardless, that is why it was wrong. This same organization screamed bloody murder when (a reporter) used the word “fag” at CityBeat.

Intentions notwithstanding, Rodriguez-Kennedy wonders how such a post could happen in the first place.

“Why would they think it would be OK to use a video to compare a person of color to a monkey?” Rodriguez-Kennedy asked rhetorically.

“At the very least, it gives the perception of racism,” he said. “It may be a coincidence that the editorial team and publisher happen to be all white. Monkey is a term that typically is employed against African Americans, but me being of Puerto Rican dissent, my culture is deeply entwined with African Americans by blood and history.”

Also reacting to the post, someone with the Twitter handle @echo5juliet tweeted, “calling people of color a monkey is racist, especially one of my fellow Marines!!”

Meanwhile, @MattCorrales tweeted, “Yeah, that’s pretty damn racist. And childish. What happened to dialogue? It’s clear why everyone’s leaving the SD GOP.”

For his part, Rodriguez-Kennedy says he would simply like an apology.

“If they had apologized I would have been ok with it,” he said. “… The fact is that its inappropriate. Just own up to it; do the right thing and apologize. This isn’t hard – we all make mistakes.”

This post has been edited from the original, which erroneously reported than rival mayoral candidate, Nathan Fletcher had tweeted his support for fellow Marine, Will Rodriguez-Kennedy. The referenced Fletcher tweet was unrelated to the issue reported in this story (-Ed.)

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization,  released never-before-seen financial documents Friday from the National Organization for Marriage showing a $10,000 donation from Mitt Romney’s PAC in 2008.  HRC called on Mitt Romney to disavow the racially divisive tactics of the National Organization for Marriage, which HRC this week revealed to be engaging in a plan to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks” and manipulate the Latino community.

“Mitt Romney’s funding of a hate-filled campaign designed to drive a wedge between Americans is beyond despicable,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Not only has Romney signed NOM’s radical marriage pledge, now we know he’s one of the donors that NOM has been so desperate to keep secret all these years.”

The contribution from Romney’s “Free and Strong America” PAC, donated while NOM was engaged in passing California’s Proposition 8, was revealed in NOM’s 2008 IRS 990 report, which HRC obtained from a whistleblower.  The document (the public version of which normally has the donor names redacted) is available at: http://www.scribd.com/nomexposed/d/87361789-NOMSched2008PDF.

HRC reviewed copies of Romney’s “Free and Strong America” PAC’s filings with the Federal Election Commission and no contribution to NOM was disclosed in 2008.  However, knowing that oftentimes federal leadership PACs create state PAC entities in places where contribution limits do not exist or disclosure laws are lax, HRC did discover an Alabama-based “Free and Strong America” PAC that in 2008 does disclose the $10,000 contribution to NOM.

In an October 28, 2008 article in Utah’s Deseret News, Romney’s spokesperson claims they have made a contribution to Prop. 8, but there is no evidence of disclosure of a contribution to the effort.  If Romney’s spokesperson is accurate, then both Romney’s PAC and NOM may have violated California disclosure laws.

“For what other purpose would you contribute $10,000 to NOM three weeks before the election other than Prop 8?” said Solmonese.  “The question that now remains is whether this whole thing was an attempt for Mitt Romney to fund the Prop 8 battle without his own fingerprints.”

HRC exposed NOM’s divisive strategy this week in documents that were disclosed by a court in Maine as part of an ongoing campaign finance investigation into the organization.  NAACP Chairman Emeritus Julian Bond called NOM’s tactics “one of the most cynical things I’ve ever heard.”

“Mitt Romney must be held to account.  You can’t at one point say you’ll be better for gays than Ted Kennedy and then turn around and fund one of the most divisive, far-right strategies ever devised to deny rights to gay people,” said Solmonese.

Additionally, HRC launched an online action encouraging fair-minded Americans to contact Mitt Romney and tell him to disavow NOM’s divisive strategy.

Nathan Fletcher

Hours before a highly anticipated LGBT mayoral forum at The Center, sponsored by San Diego Democrats for Equality, Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher announced that he has decided to leave the Republican Party and will become an independent. Fletcher said that he has struggled with the decision but came to it in an effort to do “what was right for the city.”

Fletcher rebukes Councilman Carl DeMaio for his comment that he wants to make San Diego the “Wisconsin of the West.” Fletcher contends that “Wisconsin is defined by gridlock. We deserve better.” He also accuses Congressman Bob Filner of being “one of the most partisan members of Congress. Who tells you the only reason you should vote for him is simply because of his party affiliation. You deserve better.”

Fletcher in recent weeks was assailed by the DeMaio campaign for his votes against his party in support of LGBT issues like teaching LGBT history in schools and issuing driver’s licenses to transgender Californians that reflect their new gender. The DeMaio campaign labeled Fletcher the “most liberal Republican.”

Fletcher ends with “I will be an independent mayor that will get things done. I hope you will join me.”