Dist. 28 (formerly 11) recertifies its RINO status Update: O’Connor responds

Lone wolf district chair supports his Mom and left-leaning AZ Republic

Last night’s meeting of the Maricopa County Republican Executive Guidance Committee (EGC) was telling. The new chairman, Scott O’Connor, was the lone vote, 25 – 1, protesting the resolution containing these words: 


WHEREAS, the Open Elections Initiative would effectively abolish political parties in Arizona by prohibiting them from organizing and nominating candidates for virtually all public offices; and

WHEREAS, by preventing political parties from presenting their duly nominated candidates to the voters at election time, this initiative undermines freedom of choice for the voters and freedom of association for the people of Arizona; and

WHEREAS, the Republican Party does not agree with all the principles of minority parties such as the Libertarian and Green Parties, yet believes that their voices are important and if this initiative became law, minor party candidates would not finish in the top two positions and would clearly be cut out of the election process; and

WHEREAS, the Open Elections Initiative will make it more difficult to determine a candidate’s position because of the lack of party affiliation and is widely viewed as an incumbency protection act; and

WHEREAS, Open Elections in other states did not live up to their promises and, in fact, lowered voter turnout, and other feel-good initiatives such as the Independent Redistricting Commission in Arizona have not taken politics out of redistricting as promised, but vastly increased the political partisanship, gamesmanship and bureaucracy; and

WHEREAS, a general election with two candidates from the same faction with similarly held beliefs would diminish voter turnout through lack of interest;  NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. The leadership of the Maricopa County Republican Committee (MCRC), by and through the Executive Guidance Committee (EGC), formally opposes the Open Elections Initiative and urges all voters to vote against it; and

2. The EGC hereby instructs officials of the MCRC to submit a summary of this resolution to the Secretary of State to be included in the Secretary of State’s Ballot Proposition Guide for the 2012 elections, these costs to be paid by the MCRC.

First, it should be noted that Scott O’Connor is the son of former swing-voting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She has become a steadfast proponent of gutting the very political parties that put her in her positions as an Arizona state legislator and Maricopa County Superior Court Judge — back in the day when judges actually ran for election — catching the eye of President Ronald Reagan, who appointed her to the High Court. It was not by accident that Democrat Gov. Bruce Babbitt named her to a seat on Arizona Court of Appeals preceding Reagan’s appointment.

Now she continues to side with liberals in neutering our elective process. The Arizona Republic is staffed by those who relentlessly promote the deceptively named initiative, Open Elections/Open Government. They’ve all taken their turn, from Mary Jo Pitzl, Linda Valdez, and E.J. Montini to Laurie Roberts — in columns, editorials, articles and Quick Hits. It’s their liberal career dying gasp unified as a full-fledged effort to remove party affiliations from our ballots as a means of resuscitating liberalism while turning back conservative gains. 

34 Responses to Dist. 28 (formerly 11) recertifies its RINO status Update: O’Connor responds

  1. 1776 says:

    Imagine you’re a fly on the wall at a strategy meeting of the Central Committee for a Leftist America…

    Chairman: It looks like we screwed up with Obama. He’s pushed our ideas so strongly that the masses are catching on and now it looks like the Conservatives might take back some of the gains we’ve won since the ’40s. The masses will never elect enough of us to power if they know what we’re up to and who we are. Now, thanks to Obama, they know what we’re up to and since we’ve taken over the Democratic Party they know who we are. Any suggestions on what we can do now?

    First Vice Chairman: Well it seems to me that since we have an entire party apparatus we can’t very well give that up so, what if we keep the party structure but convince the masses to change their elections to “non-partisan”. If we don’t have to run as Democrats we’re back to people not knowing who we are and we can always lie just as before about what we want to do. All we have to do is come up with some sort of people’s initiative with a patriotic-sounding name like “Clean Elections” and the masses will vote for it.

    Chairman: Brilliant! We’ll call it “Open Elections, Open Government”. The masses believed Obama when he said he’d have the most “transparent” administration ever. The fools will believe anything we feed them as long as we’re careful what we call it. Let’s appoint a committee immediately so we can get it on this year’s ballot.

  2. garvan says:

    What would happen if a substantial number of conservatives joined the Democrat Party?

    Imagine some of these conservatives eventually getting on the Democrat Central Committee.

    If you’re registered “Decline to State”, join the Dem party NOW!

    If you’re a Republican reeling in dismay that your “Republican” candidates are veering to the left, join the Dem party.

    It’s called guerrilla warfare. The Dems are great at it. Why can’t Republicans do the same?

    The potential for political mischief is huge.

    • Kent says:

      Great concept, but it would never work, garvan. Most Republicans are too honorable to join the left whose true ideal is Socialism. I would gag on their rhetoric and could never join in promoting their deception. Could you actually carry out your plan? In order to be effective, you’d have to do more than reregister. You’d have to become active. My stomach isn’t strong enough for that!

      • garvan says:

        Hey, Kent, I wasn’t recommending joining them philosophically. I was recommending INFILTRATING them.

        The Libertarian Party did just this in California years ago. The LP didn’t have ballot standing but the Green Party did.

        So, LP members joined the Green Party enmasse.

        Then they all showed up at their political convention in San Francisco.

        There were so many libertarians in attendance that they outvoted the “real” Greenies and selected libertarians as the Green Party candidates.

    • diogidog says:

      Just imagine. It would be like the TEA people and the Ron Paul disciples infiltrating the Republican precincts and conspiring to eventually takie over the Republican poliitical structure bleeding into the intricate apparatus of the inner workings of the Party ex post facto changing the entire scope and philosophy of the Party so that in time the Party no longer resembles anything of its former magnificance.

      Now that’s a far fetch of the imagination.

      Birds of a feather …

      • garvan says:

        Apples and oranges. Right now the Republlican Party HAS been infiltrated with people who essentially are Democrats.

        They’re called RINOs

  3. Richard says:

    Lots of us liberals are also opposed to “top two.” Many of us agree with Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News and an expert on the electoral process, when he wrote:

    “Louisiana has used the top-two system more than any other state. It has been used for state and local elections since 1975 and for Congress 1978-2006. Louisiana is not a well-governed state. According to an op-ed in the New York Times a month ago, it is the prison capital of the world. Over 1% of the adults are in the criminal justice system. There is no other state, and no foreign country, about which that is true. A large proportion of the prisoners are on for-profit prisons, where the prisons rent out the prisoners to employers, and the more prisoners in the prison, the more profit for the owners. Louisiana was not prepared for the 2005 hurricane and that wasn’t just the federal government’s fault.

    Top-two systems make it difficult for reform movements to gain any headway. Candidates with the most name recognition and the most money win, in the absence of strong political parties. For over 130 years political scientists have studied political parties, and they are unanimous that in the absence of parties, special interests have more influence.”

    I am running for Congress as a member of the Americans Elect Party, as is Stephen Dolgos of New River. This initiative will destroy minor parties like the Libertarians, Greens, and others. The California experience is typical. Using this initiative for the first time in the June primary, each race in California will be “top two.” And for the first time ever, there will be no candidate for Congress who is not a Republican or Democrat.

    So many liberals join conservatives in opposing this.

  4. Not A McCainiac says:

    This phony Scott O’Connor is the same District Chairman who praised a left-leaning district Precinct Committeeman, Kathy Petsas for her concept of “Dekookifying” the Republican Party by urging conservatives to move to the left. The RINOs, McCain supporters all, openly embraced the concept. The newspaper’s Laurie Roberts resembled a thirsty dog, slurping up the idea to squeeze out a few columns.

    It’s time for us to realize that RINO’s don’t tolerate us, they despise us. We who are pro-life and support the Second Amendment embarrass them. Let’s hope they cringe themselves back to the Democrat Party where they actually belong.

    • CD9 says:

      Oh NOT, I can not wait till the old man is up for reelection, does anybody actually think he will run Again? He wanted a come bcak after his loss to BO, well he got it, not get out of our lives you nasty piece of manure.

      • Doc says:

        If he’s breathin’, he’ll haunt us yet again! He and his ilk are the bain of our existance! Again i ask, ‘cuz I don’t know…CAN’T WE RUN THESE LIARS OUT OR OUR PARTY?!?!?

  5. Bernie says:

    “Amnesty John” McCain has not shown his butt in the west valley in more than 2 years. I think he realizes that he’d be booed off the platform. In 2008 his campaign manager tried to get his name on the Maricopa GOP bank account. Fortunately he was told to go pound sand!
    His hand puppet Flake is indebted to Amnesty John. Million $$ campaign contribution??? Money talks, right?

  6. Realist says:

    My understanding is Scott O'(RINO)Conner was drafted to run by none other than the certifiable dekookifying kook herself Kathy Petsas. Those who know of her are aware she is extremely volatile and not playing with a full deck. DId I mention paranoia as her better attribute? If anyone reading this blog knows her…tell her of seeingred then go get a “butter-fly” net it will come in handy.

  7. chick20112011 says:

    Comment on the Republica, still waiting for the RAG to update it’s “news” site on the big, Sinaloa-Cartel related drug bust in Tempe. As usual with the RAG, one has to visit other news sites to actually be informed. If the RAG is all one reads, they suffer and so does the community.

  8. Kent says:

    Old McNasty is barely breathing now. Nothing stops that leftwing egomaniac. They’ll prop him up when his blood runs cold. There will be no discernable difference.

    • Doc says:

      COPY THAT KENT! He won’t show his face up here in Prescott, either…which is good!

      Freekin’ Zombie!

      • Ajo Joe says:

        Consider yourself fortunate, Doc! The only time he shows his face anywhere is during elections. He parades his hero tale around enough senior villages to cement their votes. It’s a shame he was captured and suffered at the hands of the North Vietnamese, but crashing numerous jets and then being captured does not a hero make. Leaving your wife and family who waited for your return as you take up with a new, younger, richer honey does not a hero make. Heroism is putting your life on the line to help others.John McCain is a snake.

  9. Ajo Joe says:

    When Sandra O’Connor was named to the U.S. Supreme Court, many Arizona conservatives objected to her appointment. They didn’t care that she was the first female justice or that she was a transplanted Arizonan. They were more concerned about her well known liberal bent. She was not a political unknown and quite a few didn’t like what they knew. It sounds as though her apple (Scott) didn’t fall too far from the tree.

  10. Night Owl says:

    Brad Pitt and his mother are not such political birds of a feather as the O’Connors. Jane Pitt wrote this letter to the editor of the Missouri News-Leader in support of Mitt Romney.


    Her Dimocrat son Brad gave $28, 500 dollars — a year’s salary for many Americans — to Barack Hussein Obama in 2008.

    If you’re a Republican and go to Pitt’s movies, you contributed to electing Obama!!!

  11. Scott O'Connor says:

    I am not sure why I am bothering to respond to an anonymous blogger, who does not have the courage to identify himself/herself, nor the other commenters who are equally courageous.

    Before voting no on the resolution, I told the EGC members that I did not support Open Elections/Open Government (OE/OG), but that I did not want to see the Party officially put out the resolution as drafted, containing so many false, misleading, or exaggerated statements. It undermines our credibility as an organization. I knew this thing was going to sail through the EGC, but I didn’t not want my name on it as written.

    I’ve read the initiative, and I’ve done some research on it, corresponding with proponents, opponents and others who have written about it.

    The first “whereas” in the resolution says that it would abolish political parties and bans them from nominating a candidate. This is patently false. It does not do that. What it does is allow anyone who gets enough signatures to run in a primary, whether they have the support of their party or not. This is true even today. However, OE/OG no longer will allow parties to use the government’s electoral system and taxpayer subsidy to conduct the party’s nomination process. That leaves parties on their own to figure out how to choose their preferred candidate, and to impose discipline on party members who run anyway if they don’t win the party election.

    The second “whereas” contains similar misrepresentations as in the first one. It does not restrict parties from operating, nominating, or freely associating. It may actually make parties more “free” by leaving them up to their own devices in figuring out how to nominate their candidate. They just have to do It on their own dime now, with no taxpayer subsidy. There’s liberty for you.

    The third “whereas” made me laugh, with the sob story about helping the poor libertarians and greens get on the ballot. This is coming from the same AZ GOP that went to court last month and successfully threw 4 libertarians off the ballot, as if the Republicans had anything to fear from them in the election.

    The fourth “whereas” says that OE/OG “is widely viewed as an incumbency protection act.” According to what source or survey? I’ve asked the proponents and analysis, and none of them see it this way.

    The fifth “whereas” says that the IRC not only did not take politics out of redistricting, it made it worse. I was in grade school, and Mom was in the Arizona Senate, during the redistricting that followed the 1970 census. I still remember the stories of how crookedly some incumbents tried to protect themselves when it was in the legislature’s hands. Trust me, we are way better off now, notwithstanding Colleen Mathis.

    Contrary to comments in this thread, I put my own name in as a candidate for LD218 chair. I was tired of seeing news releases and other statements coming from our party leadership that were embarrassing to be associated with. I think our party should have some integrity. Someone needs to question things rather than follow blindly when there the logic is missing or the facts say otherwise. I intend to be that person.

    To Not A McCainiac, I bet I own more guns than you do, and I know how to use them.

    To Not A McCainiac and Realist, I admire Kathy Petsas. She has endured a lot of criticism from conservatives in LD 11 for years, yet she is still hanging in there, sticking to her principles. She has recruited tons of PC’s in the district, including this time around. She motivated me to fill the roster in my precinct. Her energy, devotion and organization should be the model for all PC’s. When I need help in organizing an election in our district, I know I can count on her to get the work done.

    To Ajo Joe, the only voices from Arizona against Mom in her 1981 Supreme Court confirmation process were from Right to Life. Roe v. Wade had been on the books already since 1973, and it remains the law today, 6 years after Mom retired, despite all the other justices who have come and gone. Did I agree with all of her decisions? Of course not. Do I think she is a liberal? No. Have you read her dissent in Kelo? Give it a read. You and I are fortunate not to have not made those ourselves. The average case is really tough, with great arguments on both sides. You should read a few opinions on cases you don’t’ really care about passionately to see what I mean.

    You say the apple didn’t fall far from the tree. That’s the nicest thing anyone could say to me. My dear departed father thanks you, too.

    Scott O’Connor

    • Doc says:

      Reasonable post, Scott. But the TRUTH is your Mother has contributed to the wrecking of our Country, sir. Proof? Obamacare! Nuff sed!

      My question to you is simple. HAVE YOU READ THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM & WILL YOU FOLLOW IT??

      • Orion says:

        O’Connor’s mother has done plenty to be upset over, but she is no longer on the US Supreme Court and did not vote on ObamaCare.

      • Doc says:

        My mistake…I knew that…it’s early…thank you for the correction…

      • Orion says:

        Don’t beat yourself up too much, Doc. Had Sandra O’Connor been on this court, she most likely would have sided with the liberals. That was her MO.

    • Realist says:

      O’Connor: Kathy Petsas, the role model for all RINO’s and the Democrats favorite RINO. She should be placed in a looney bin where she belongs. If this is who you consider to be a PC role model, then that tells me all I need to know about you. Do us all a favor and crawl back under the rock Kathy found you under!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  12. 1776 says:

    What is the difference between these two fragments: “… says that it would abolish political parties…” and “…would effectively abolish political parties in Arizona…”? The word is “effectively” and that takes out the element of plausible denial so cherished by liberals and other liars.

    Here’s another one. Merit selection is lifetime tenure for judges, or, merit selection is EFFECTIVELY lifetime tenure for judges.

    Plausible denial goes like this: Judges are still subject to the will of the people because we can always vote not to retain one under the merit selection system. Therefore merit selection is better than election because, while still accountable to the people, judges aren’t beholden to campaign contributors and so are less susceptible to corruption. Well, if merit selection is good enough for judges, why not all the other offices we vote on at election time?

    The reason merit selection is so bad is that it really is 99.997% equivalent to lifetime tenure. That’s the percentage of judges that have been retained out of the universe of judges appointed under merit selection. Oops, I exaggerate. The real number is 100%.

    Merit selection also removes potential challengers from a judge’s political life. It allows many good judges to serve unmolested but it also allows very bad judges to slide quietly along for a lifetime, immune from exposure regardless of the degree of corruption to which they might sink as long as they carefully maintain appearances and alliances. Is it really the case that judges are too important and elections are too messy to trust the people to weed out the bad ones among all the good ones?

    Of all the things elites detest, and there are many, at the top of the list is the idea that, if given the chance, the “common people” have the collective intelligence and the wisdom to do for themselves and to govern themselves.

    • Helen Post says:

      Thank you 1776 for pointing out O’Conners purposeful misquote of the key word “effectively.” Now his argument is just typical liberal deceit. Of course, OE/OG effectively destroys political parties by relegating their importance to meaningless. That is the whole ball game for Mr. O’Conner. He wishes to “effectively” eliminate the possibility of a true conservative ( he would term “kooks” as his much admired fellow RINO Kathy Petsas did in her much ridiculed dekookification of the Republican Party column in the AZ Republic).

      Then he suddenly finds Jesus as he laments that taxpayers are currently forced to pay for partisan elections and OE/OG would end this liberty killing practice. Give a RINO observer a break.

      His third point is laughable back at him because he again purposefully misses the point: The point is to legally appear on the ballot, not illegally appear on the ballot. Of course a Party has the right to object to illegal activities and the Republican Party did so.

      Maybe in liberal circles or among Petsas RINOs no one sees the OE/OG as an incumbency protection act, but in conservative circles it certainly is seen as just that. Incumbents have a large advantage without the act. OE/OG only multiplies the effect because a lesser known candidate will be lost in the multitude of candidates. The liberal main-stream-media will insure that the incumbent they prefer gets the favorable notice needed.

      Mr O’Conner does not state what party leadership embarrassed him the most. Would that be McCain, Kyl, Shadegg, Flake or would that be Pearce, Arpaio, Thomas or Kavanaugh — who have steadfastly fought illegal immigration? If you have to spend more that a second on that question, go back to your comic books.

      What makes O’Conner’s diatribe so laughable is his elitist attitude which clearly identifies his liberal bonafies honed since childhood.

  13. PV PC says:

    I live in what was the old District 11. I’m now reapportioned out by the liberals on the so-called “Independent” Redistricting Commission, whose sole task it appeared was to destroy Republican Congressional and Legislative Districts. Scott O’Connor is a sorry replacement for the conservative leadership we previously had under Rob Haney, before the McCain forces took over. They thought they had pulled a real coup by removing him as chair, but he then went on to overwhelmingly win the Maricopa County Chairmanship — TWICE!!! McCain has done more to destroy our Republican Party than anyone in memory. Scott O’Connor is an integral part of that faction.
    Listen to what Tom DeLay had to say about McCain back in 2008:

  14. American Dad says:

    So Scott O’Connor is not sure why he’s responding to this website? Maybe to attempt to get his message out to all of us who read it! This is my go-to spot each day. Since Scott O’Connor is too haughty to want to bother with us, he should have made his comments in his mirror while shaving.

  15. Charlie Conservative says:

    You miss Scott’s point that he only objected to the harsh manner in which the EGC resolution was worded, otherwise he would have voted for it. I am sure he is running down to the SOS office at this very moment to submit his own more finely worded con argument.

    Who was that who just said for me not to hold my breath? You think that Scott was just putting us on and being disingenuous in his misleads like a common-faced RINO?

    Say it isn’t so Scott and submit your much more professionally worded con argument for all to see. You can easily refute their insinuations that you are nothing but another elitist, establishment supporting RINO. Show ’em, Scott. You can do it. Maybe Kathy Petsas will help you write it.

    • Blackbeard says:

      Scotty’s mother is part of the “brain trust” behind this election nightmare the left is attempting to foist off on the voting citizens of our state. He doesn’t need Kathy Petsas’s help. Mama will craft his submission for him.

    • Scott O'Connor says:

      Charlie, I am just back from the SOS, where I filed my argument against OE/OG. You’ll just have to wait until the ballot comes out to see what it says.

      I may be an elitist (i.e., I earn more than you?), establishment (I belong to nice private clubs?) RINO (need to trim my nose hair?), but I know a bad deal when I see it.


  16. Charlie Conservative says:

    Bravo for you, Scott. I knew you could do it and I look forward to reading what you had to say. You sent me to the dictionary, however, with your side trip about earning more than me and belonging to nice private clubs. Where did that come from? My dictionary says ELITIST- an elitist system, government etc. is one in which a small group of people have much more power or advantages than other people.

    • Scott O'Connor says:

      Heck, you called me an elitist, and I had no idea how I qualified. Since I was on the short end of a 25-1 vote, I’d hardly call myself the one with “power or advantage.”

    • Villanova says:

      I thought for sure you’d focus in on the wild nose hairs. Scott O’Connor agrees his need trimming, yet he bandies about his memberships in private club(s). In the private clubs to which I belong, those with wildly straggling or matted nose hairs receive warning letters. After 24 hours with no attention paid to this problem, their locker room keys are taken and they are denied access to the men’s lounge. Bad for our image, don’t ya know? O’Connor is treading on thin ice.