The “Open Government” Initiative Is Utter Trash


[Update: Site Administrator has moved it under "Guest Opinion"]

(Author’s note:  This is NOT a press release, it’s a Guest Opinion, but I don’t have that log-in.  This opinion was posted anonymously for a reason:  some people can’t express their opinions without endangering their jobs.)

Arizona Voters,

Let me be brutally frank.  You’ve been dazzled by good-sounding ballot initiative titles quite regularly and, in the end, the initiatives never do what their liberal proponents have duped you into believing they’d do.  Let me give you some examples to illustrate and prove the point.  According to “Clean Elections”’ liberal proponents, the measure was supposed to “level the playing field,” which has been an illegal purpose according to American jurisprudence for quite some time, but in the end, it got more conservatives elected.  The recent proposal to increase sales taxes by 18% was sold to you as a measure to protect education, health care and public safety funding.  Did it?  No!  The Independent Redistricting Commission was supposed to give us more competitive races.  Has it?  No!  We’ve got more uncontested races and races that will be decided in a primary than ever before!  Term limits were supposed to force turnover in politics so those “evil politicians” couldn’t accumulate too much power.  In reality, politicians stay in power despite term limits by playing a virtual musical chairs of elected positions.  Ultimately, you,. The voter, are directly responsible for killing institutional knowledge and increasing the power of unelected legislative staff members.  Great job!

Certainly you have heard the cliché, “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.”  Frankly, voters, you’re WELL PAST the shame on you stage!  You voted for all the above measures and NONE of them delivered on the promises the liberal proponents made to you!  Similarly, this “Open Government” initiative sounds great at first blush, but its liberal proponents will not deliver on their promises.  They will fail you this time like they’ve failed you every time before.

If you read between the lines of the arguments that the sponsors and proponents of the jungle primary make, it’s plain to see that they have an agenda:  to drag the political football to the left.  The sponsors and proponents of the initiative argue that a jungle primary will fill the legislature with fewer extremists and more moderates will be elected.  No Republican has any business voting for this initiative.  Democrats?  Well, what Democrat doesn’t want fewer Republicans elected overall and a greater percentage of those Republican office holders to be moderate?  Independents, if you want to continue to be dissatisfied with the parties, go ahead and vote for this initiative.  Do you, voters, honestly believe that extremist Democrats like former State Senator Kyrsten Sinema or current State Senator Steve Gallardo will be ousted by moderate Democrats?  Extremist Democrats won’t be ousted at all, but what the liberals are hoping is that conservative legislators will be picked off by liberal “Republicans” like Senators Rich Crandall, Adam Driggs, John Nelson, Nancy Barto; Speaker Andy Tobin; Representatives Heather Carter, Karen Fann, Bob Robson; and former-Rep. Bill Konopnicki, etc.

So, with extreme Democrats and liberal Republicans in power, you can see that the ultimate result will be that the state will take a hard left turn because liberal “Republicans” will betray the party’s principles and side with the Democrats when it matters most.  Big government is already a problem considering our national debt and deficit spending, this initiative will only compound our problems by adding irresponsible state spending on top of outrageous federal spending.

Recently, we’ve witnessed ultra-liberal Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts embark on a “Dekookify” the state campaign.  Laurie has heralded this “Open Government” proposal in her column and has argued, like the sponsors of this measure, that it will remove the “kooks” from the legislature and install moderates in power.  Let’s be perfectly clear:  the ONLY people Ms. Roberts considers “kooks” are conservatives and she is the Left’s willing “useful idiot.”  Ms. Roberts is so benighted that she doesn’t understand that without the “kooks” she’d have nothing to write about and she’d be out of a job.  People want to hear about CONFLICT, it’s what gets them engaged and interested in politics.  If she got what she claims she wants, moderate legislators all holding hands and singing Kum By Ya and constantly passing “non-controversial” legislation that steadily grows the government, no one would want to read the stories about everyone compromising.  It’s one of the reasons why Rodney King’s admontion , “Can’t we all just get along?” is so laughable.  Like it or not, humans LIVE for conflict.  It’s the common and uniting theme in our history, our music, or novels, our plays, our news, etc.  Laurie Roberts would put herself out of a job because even fewer people would buy the Republic, subscriptions would decline even further and there’d be no money to pay Ms. Roberts’ salary because no one wants to read non-stories with no conflict.  Idiot.  I am ASTOUNDED that she is actually PAID to put her opinions in print!!

Let me ask you, voters and Ms. Roberts, if the electorate is so dissatisfied with our elected officials, why do we have so many uncontested races?  Why are so many contests being settled in the primary?  Why isn’t EVERY race contested?  Why aren’t ALL races settled in a general election?  The fact that we have so few contested races reflects that people aren’t as unhappy as you, Ms. Roberts, and the sponsors of this initative (and even the proponents of the IRC initiative) like to intentionally mislead the public into believing.  The lack of any real contests proves that you are a bald-faced liar, Ms. Roberts, and that goes for the sponsors of this initiative as well.  Shane may have treated you with kid gloves on Sunday Square Off, Ms. Roberts, but I won’t because you’re threatening the state that I love dearly.  I take my patriotism very seriously.

If the proponents of this “Open Government” initiative aim to get more Democrats elected and, of the Republicans elected, more moderates, think about what the impact would be on voter registration.  It would energize the Democrats and they’d recover their flagging registration percentages while disenfranchised and discouraged conservatives would flee the Republican Party to re-register as Independents.  This initiative is insidious and it’s a liberal’s wet dream come true.  I cannot urge voters enough to reject this initiative.

I know you, voters, are also familiar with the cliché, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”  As stated above, no one would pay attention to politics if we all elected a bunch of moderate, compromising legislators that had no guiding principles.  Basically, you would lose any interest in politics and that, my friends, would breed corruption.  Is corruption  really what you want?

I know you’ve also heard the adage that, “There’s not a lick of difference between the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.”  This measure would fuel that cynicism and continue to drive people away from the parties.  In essence, it is a lack of adherence to a set of guiding principles that has driven voters from both parties.  Former President Ronald Reagan likened strong adherence to principles to, “bold colors” and likened a lack of guiding principles to, “pale pastels.”  He wanted stark contrasts between Republicans and Democrats.  It is a LACK of differences between the parties that breeds cynicism, opacity.  Bold colors have served BOTH parties very well.  Democrats are energized by liberal politicians like President Obama and Republicans are energized by strong conservatives like Ronald Reagan.  Democrats have been critical of both Clinton and Obama for not being liberal enough!  Similarly, conservatives castigate moderate Republicans for not being conservative enough.  To further illustrate the point, no one gets excited about moderate elected officials.  No one cares about liberal RepublicanU.S. Sens. Lindsay Graham or Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins.  So, if you vote for the “Open Government” initiative, you’re going to be voting to replace our current elected officials with boring officials that prove the old cliché about there being no difference between the parties and you’re going to be asleep at the wheel (or voter booth as the case may be…if you even bother to vote in the future).  Is that really what you want?

As stated above, elected officials’ lack of adherence to a clearly defined set of guiding principles has driven liberals out of the Democratic Party and conservatives out of the Republican Party.  Not only will this initiative promote opacity in government because it will breed apathy because of boring elected officials, but it will also breed opacity in that it will continue to drive voters from the parties and thereby make it much more difficult to identify and target voters for contact by those seeking office.  It’s easy for Republicans to target Republicans in an election and easy for Democrats to target Democrats…but how does a campaign identify exactly what an “Independent” believes and get information to like-minded independent voters to turn them out to vote?  If you vote for this, people are going to become increasingly dissatisfied with the parties and you will receive less information on the candidates.  In other words, you’ll not only be voting for a lack of enthusiasm about politics if you vote for this initiative, but you’ll also be voting to make yourself more ignorant about candidates since you can’t be as easily targeted for contact.  Apathy, ignorance, opacity.  Sounds like just what we need!

One concept that you, voters, seem to fail to grasp on a regular basis is that we are guaranteed a republican form of government.  The initiative process is a democratic form of government.  We’ve been warned since Plato and even by our Founding Fathers that democracy is an inferior form of government to a republic.  Your consistently poor votes on initiatives are proof of that fact.  You’ve heard the cliché that, “elections have consequences.”  That cliché is absolutely true.  WAKE UP, people!  Quit falling for soundbite arguments and do some critical thinking for once and REJECT this utterly stupid proposal!  I know my arguments are counter-intuitive, they take some time and thought to understand, but I believe the points are valid because they’re supported by evidence.  If you pass this initiative, you get what you deserve…and I’ll be observing the results and waiting in the wings to excoriate you again when I’m proven right.


Comments

  1. Diogidog says:

    It would be unthinkable for a Party to be infiltrated by less than honest folks who really don’t support the history and philosophy of that Party; who would seize an opportunity to run to just get a leg up in a Primary or General election spot. It would be as farfetched as thinking that the TEA people and Ron Paul disciples would infiltrate a Party and monkey around with the inner workings of the Party apparatus in order to embed themselves into the intricate operations of the Party and inculcate and redirect the Party hierarchy, in thereby, using them as a vehicle to obtain legitimacy and political power.

    Of course this is a farfetched concep: But a real possibility ?

    Birds of a feather …

  2. Spiked Flails says:

    Diog, I can understand how Ron Paul Libertarians infiltrate the Republican Party, and I understand that some Democrats claim they are Republicans and run and are elected as Republicans…but Tea Partiers? Libertarians and Democrats have conflicting beliefs with Republicans, but Tea Partiers beliefs are conservative Republican beliefs. Both think that we’re too heavily taxed, both think that the government is too large, both think that the federal government spends too much. Both SHOULD be staunchly constitutionalist. There are those who will go too far (liberals) and claim that both are racist. Granted, liberal or moderate Republicans and Tea Partiers may not have a lot in common. Can you outline how Tea Partiers have conflicting beliefs with conservative Republicans and are trying to hijack the Republican Party?

  3. This is a press release?

    Who in the world wrote this?
    The AZGOP actually approved this?

    It reads like it’s appealing to someone with a sub 7th grade reading level.
    Heck, Zoo’s ramblings are more coherent than this thing.

    Laurie Roberts is “ultra-liberal”?

    Since when did Press Releases reach 11 paragraphs in length?
    11 disjointed and nonsensical paragraphs at that.

    I wasn’t too hot on the Open Primary initiative to begin with, but based on the fast one the Governor and many R legislators tried to pull yesterday and this “press release”, my vote is a solid “Yes”.

    • wherewasi says:

      Jeff – I agree 100% (except that I have liked the idea from the beginning).

      If we end up with all Republicans on the general election ballot, so be it. At least we have a choice between two! And with the current composition of registered voters in the State of Arizona, the Dems and Independents voting for the more moderate candidate could change the complexion of Arizona politics. Finally.

  4. Lampoon says:

    If Shane is against it, I am for it.

    The parties should be scared, they don’t offer much anymore…which is why Independents are growing so much. We don’t need the extremist of the left versus the extremist of the right every election.

    Its on the ballot, it will win, and it will be good for everyone in this state. We can de-kookify the legislature.

  5. LEO IN TSN says:

    The obvious intent of this initiative, echoed by the foaming-at-the-mouth SA comments so far, should be amply illustrated by a new traffic sign—“AZ – LEFT TURN ONLY!”

    It’s very revealing that the proponents of this subterfuge always address the moderation of the Republican Party, condemning conservatives as zealots, thereby openly admitting that it is a thinly veiled attempt to reinforce the radical left. Once again, as we have come to expect, AZ patriots have to step up, elbow to elbow, to repel a new leftist sneak attack. It’s just one more battle front in the war to protect & preserve AZ, and ultimately US.

    God bless America.

    • Yeah, that’s it Leo….like anything and everything else…..IT’S ALL A LEFTIST PLOT!!!!

      I don’t condemn all conservatives as zeaolots; I am a conservative.
      But, I don’t support the rabid, foaming at the mouth zealots who’ve come to occupy a large portion of our elected positions in this state.

      At the same time, they were duly elected so it is what it is.
      Doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.

      If the candidate is good enough and appeals to a broad enough base under the proposed system, they will be elected, zealot or not.

      Why are you so concerned?

  6. When I was younger I voted for both Republican and Democrat, but inn the past twenty years the Democrats have gone over to the dark side, I now vote strickly Republican. I will have to do much work if party affiliations are not on the ballots, I not only vote Republican but Actual Conservative Republicn Only.

    As for a Paulbots they are not the only reason I can not and will not vote Ron Paul. I was curious and I went to hear him speak, I came away with “Hell No”, he will never get my vote. His interpertation of the constitution is not what the Tea Party stand for, he runs as a Republican but does not believe in the Republican Party Platform, says he is really a Libertarian. Oh that is right he ran as a Libertarian and lost, so his so called principles told him to lie, register as Republican and run as that. The Libertarian social policies are too Liberal I could never vote for them. If we have this so called Open Primaries Pass, we will have open borders that is the only way Democrats can win by germandering and lying about who they are, opps just like Ron Paul.

  7. Sonoransam says:

    Good points made by a political partisan from the other side. Non-partisan politics are good when it’s bad for Democrats. Otherwise it’s “utter trash”: http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/2012/07/06/we-love-the-voters-cept-when-we-dont/#comments

  8. wherewasi says:

    I’m all for it. The two strongest candidates go head to head. Someone said something about it being “too much work” to try to find out if the candidates are Rs or Ds – Really? How hard is it? If you pay any attention to politics, you probably already know who your favorites are and which party they represent. And for those of us that don’t vote down the party line, it really doesn’t make much difference. I like the idea of having 2 Republicans to choose between in a race where there is no strong Democrat. Although I don’t live in Mesa, I would have no problem choosing between Pearce and Lewis, or Pearce and Worsley. In the latest Mayoral race, I had no problem choosing between Stanton and Gullet, but I probably would have had an equally easy time choosing between which ever two were on the ballot. I would LOVE to see the Sheriff’s race be between Arpaio and ONE opponent, even if that opponent were another Republican.

    I’m voting the (R) primary ballot. There are some people I want to see (R)etire. I hope all registered Independents and No Party Preference (such as me) voters call for the (R) primary ballot and do the same!

    • “Someone said something about it being “too much work” to try to find out if the candidates are Rs or Ds …..”

      That someone also said “I now vote strickly Republican.”

      I think this says a lot.

      About a lot of things.

      Make of it what you will.

  9. I did not say it was too hard, I said it will be hard and that is because we have Liberatarian making as Republicans and Democrats such as Obama talking like he is a moderate. But I will do mhy research and still only vote for the Conservative and a real Conservative.

    If you are going to quote me get it right.

  10. Tiny Elvis says:

    huh?

    • Tiny Elvis says:

      BTW if you’re going to do a “guest opinion” at least have the courage to put your name on the piece. Or did I miss that?

  11. I think ut’s a good idea. My district is the one that elected Scott Bundgaard to the legislature. I want to whip everyone involved, including Janet Dubreil, who is running for that seat, until they.they repent. Open primaries will save us from the Bundgaards and the Dubreils, and will let honest hard working Americans have a say in the legislature. Dubreil’s husband is French, ad she was Scotty’s campaign manager. Let’s start supporting AMERICAN candidates. And, Let’s vet them. The Republucan party currently has no wy to vet candidates. You can be an off the wall French socialist, like Dubreil, and you can register and run as a republican, and nobody vetts you. We know what Dubreil is, after Scotty filed his ten million dollar lawsuit against the city of Phoenix — she was his campaign manager, his district chairperson, and is NW encouraging Scotty to collect against AMERICAN taxpayers — she is a French socialist masquerading as a republican.

    An open primary protects us against the Bundgaards and the Dubreils, It opens opportunities for honest Americans not owing something to Constantin Querard or Chuck Coughlin to get a seat in the legislature, Our current system is corrupt, with over half of our legislature owing their seats to Coughlin or Querard. Frankly, I think we need a revolution, and we need to eliminate the slime that is corrupting Arizona.

    • Beverly says:

      Bill,

      You can vet any candidate; just do a Google search and things come up. Dig deeper and search Public Records. For instance, did you know that Jeanette and hubby are suing the city of Peoria for $200 G’s? Did you know about the bankruptcy? Honest, hardworking people are what we need in office, not those who take advantage of every opportunity to soak the taxpayers with lawsuits and bankruptcies.

      Both parties are guilty; just wish they’d both work a little harder to weed out the unsuitable candidates, and don’t hesitate to get them out of office when they deceive the citizens and take privileges they shouldn’t

      We need to eliminate legislative immunity and demand transparency in reporting contributions and gifts. This past session has shown how badly these “perks” are abused.

  12. An open primary also protects us against our Sherrif, who refuses to enforce drug laws ( enforcement is 6 nines. 99. 9999% of that crime goes away.). And, the sme Sherrif hasn’t set up any accountability standards for any crimes. let’s tell him that it us 6 nines for all crimes, and that he isn’t getting reelected if he fails to deliver.

  13. Couple of important clarifications:

    I did not write this piece but I did change the posting author to “Guest Opinion” this morning. I do have to monitor the posts closer to make sure this happens.

    There are several Republicans mentioned in the post who I do not believe are liberal Republicans. All you have to do is look at their voting records with Center for Arizona Policy and Americans for Prosperity. I do not like it when they are labeled as such in some of these posts but I’ll let it slide this time. I would rather see our “political fire trained” on Democrats.

    I also had a long conversation with Laurie Roberts over the DeKookify campaign and she did mention that there are several Democrats who fall into this category – Daniel Patterson was one of them.

    Finally, I absolutely loath this initiative because it takes the party platform principles out of the process and replaces it with personalities. It makes our primary election more of a popularity contest rather than a discussion on principles. All one has to do is look at who is part of this initiative and then look at their voting records.

    Surprisingly, if the voters do pass this initiative, our election system can still be gamed. This will be another example of unintended consequences.

  14. Man, Greg Patterson’s been holding that one in for a while. He must be suffocating in his self-imposed exile.

  15. Phoenix48 says:

    This is a bit of a over-caffinated screed that was badly in need of editing prior to posting.

    But that doesn’t change just how incidious this attack is. And that is what this proposed ‘reform’ is, an attack on the two party system.

    The same arguments were shilled to push this kind of monstrosity onto the electorate in California – and the results were every bit as one-sided there as what we have endured with the Independent Redistricting Commission here.

    This time around the recall election in LD18 was the model.

    Yes, our guest commentator was guilty of a bit of histronics, befitting as one poster noted, something like what a pre-teen might respond with.

    Well, the ‘reformers’ who designed this blatent attempt to rig future elections did so expecting the same childish logic-challenged response from the voters. If the attempt to capitalize on a ‘pox on both parties’ resentment that exists in the electorate – that same electorate will wake up in a cycle or two and repeal it just as fast as they fell for it.

    The commentator had one thing exactly right. The title. It’s total trash.

    • “This is a bit of a over-caffinated screed…”

      Heh.

      “If you pass this initiative, you get what you deserve…and I’ll be observing the results and waiting in the wings to excoriate you again when I’m proven right.”

      Only Espressodamus was Gingrichian enough in his belief in himself to write something like this. He at best had a 30% success rate, and 0% when it was about pop culture.

  16. The attack on the two party system already has taken place — from inside the Party. The purification rites have gone on too long. While the top two initiative is not a panacea, it provides more openness for more candidate participation. I think it is a good change. And for those who make the argument that the liberal do-gooders have tried for years to change politics with clean elections, term limits and IRC, the leaders we have now are products of those changes. And they are predominantly REPUBLICANS. So your arguments ring hollow when you criticize changes to the system that have benefited your ideological slant! Stand up. Compete. Articulate your positions. Be judged. That’s what I want from my candidates. I don’t need the Republican Party protecting me from my own judgment.

Speak Your Mind

*