Image by CR Artist via FlickrBelow is an email I just sent to Nick Drainius of the Goldwater Institute and author of an op-ed in today's Arizona Daily Star on Prop. 200:
Dear Mr. Dranias,
There seems to be some confusion here in the "Old Pueblo" as to your Prop. 200 op-ed in this morning's Arizona Daily Star. The first hint we received was last Thursday when Jim Nintzel of the Tucson Weekly posted something on their blog "The Range." This was the headline:
More Opposition to Public Safety First Initiative: Goldwater Institute Says Prop 200 "Won’t Put Public Safety First, It Will Just Bloat City Government"
That made it read as if the Goldwater Institute had taken a position on Prop. 200. Today's op-ed uses your Goldwater Institute email for replies, just like your previously published op-ed the "Star" on the topic of Mr. Goodman's attempt to redevelop some of his property. Ironically, Mr. Goodman is one of the deeper pockets funding the pass Prop. 200 campaign.
The text of your op-ed was sent out this morning as the "daily email" from the Goldwater Institute and appears on the Goldwater Institute website.
No where in today's op-ed do you claim the piece is your opinion solely and in fact, one could easily claim the piece IS the position of the Goldwater Institute.
The piece is reprinted in whole on the conservative blog "Sonoran Alliance" as "Posted by Goldwater Institute."
My question is simple, does today's op-ed represent only your opinion? If so, how do you explain the observations above?
Thanking you in advance of your reply.
"The strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose."