I'm not a political analyst by trade [shocker, I know], but given the orotund "we shall overcome" flavor of Mayor Johnson's latest blog on his  collaboratively-named TEAMKJ.ORG web site, his opposition will be glad to know he has officially abandoned his fiery "Pot Roast of Public Anger" and retreated to the less flammable (and more familiar) "Passive Aggressive Soup." Only now, papa Johnson got a brand new bag : defender of voter rights.

Hypocritically titled "your voice still matters," Mayor J's latest blog (which has attracted a whopping 66 views to date) attempts to paint the city council as a change-resistant band of oppressors, the voters as victims of some great miscarriage of justice, and Johnson as their fearless liberator leading the oppressed in "Oh Freedom." It makes for fodder worthy of the Comedy Channel, but doesn't offer much in the way of leadership integrity.

From Johnson's blog: "All of you, from all walks of life, have asked the same question: 'Why won’t they let us vote?' I understand and share your disappointment. Last week’s council meeting could have made history. Instead, politics won the day.'

Dear Mayor,

Your sudden opposition to voter disenfranchisement, let alone "politics-as-usual" obstructionism, is laughable considering your shameless disrespect of the people's "voice" when YOU voted to level ECONOMIC SANCTIONS against the diverse people and businesses of the state of Arizona--despite the boisterous and plentiful number of "voices" that begged you not to.

Sorry Mayor Johnson, but I can't bring myself to download your new protest song "They Don't Want You To Be Heard" when your actions have proven you don't respect the process any more than the political hacks  you claim are "obstructing" it.

Granted, there was a time when I thought you represented a true threat to "status quo" thinking at city hall. When you were stumping you talked a really good game about how your lack of political experience was an asset because yours represented a "fresh" new perspective, and you had no political loyalties to appease. But it turns you were all hot air. With your AZ Boycott vote you proved you are cut from the same cloth as council deadwood Rob "I-support-any-cause-that-gets-me-applause" Fong and Kevin "I-brake-for-special-interest" McCarty.

Sorry Mayor, but your AZ vote proved--at least to me--that you're just another lemming who doesn't have the spine to stand up to political pressure. So despite your incessant special pleading to the contrary, your actions have proven you would not bring any badly needed leadership skills to city council chambers if you were promoted to CEO. You have been interviewing for the job for almost two years now and you have proven (with your actions and statements) that making you strong mayor would not signal an end to status quo; it would only signal its formal ratification.

DON'T GET ME WRONG. I disagree with AZ's law. In fact I abhor any legislation that give "authorities" more power than they already have (including all Bush's privacy-bashing legislation). But there were other ways to go about protesting the AZ law. Enacting boycott legislation was the least creative, and least honorable of all the options, yet you offered ZERO alternatives and just caved to political pressure. Where was all that great leadership you have been promising? Where were all those creative solutions? Where was all that "public discussion" you have been waxing about ad nauseam? Where was your spine? I'm not attacking you here. Far from it. I'm just saying maybe you should get a spine before you accuse others of not having one? Just a thought.

From Johnson's blog: "Yes, the issues are challenging, particularly for those who see our fight for reform in simplistic terms. A “power grab” by an “ego-driven” Mayor. A “classic battle” between business and labor. But while those catch phrases make good headlines, they ignore the truth.."

I'll give you this: you're efficient. That's a very convenient way to spin the story to achieve your desired outcome. Reminds me of a movie my family and I watched last night called "Dear John."  A beleaguered soldier comes back from Afghanistan to find the love of his life has married someone else. Much to his surprise though, she is still in love with him (the soldier). This presents a hefty challenge for the writer... how to deal with that quandary so the soldier can still get the girl and the audience can still have their happy ending.

Hmmm.......... oh I know---give the new husband cancer!  With the new husband out of the way, the soldier gets the girl and they live happily ever after. Problem solved. That's an efficient solution, but it cheapens the story and makes it a little less believable.. just like you have done by summarily dismissing all your critics (and all of their many legit beefs with your SMI) as mere gadfly labelmaking.

I won't mince my words mayor; your careless dismissal of legit criticism doesn't  inspire confidence that you can be an objective,  well-rounded executive who LISTENS more than he talks. You used to say you don't take anything personally. I think you do. Your blogs and public tantrum certainly tend to indicate you do. Again, actions speak louder than words. Were you ever taught that? Do you think all that old wisdom is mythical? Doesn't apply to you? What? Do tell. 

OK listen [I know it's hard, but try, ok?], forget about all the politicial posturing, inappropriate profane attacks on you, and grandstanding for a moment. What about the big, neon, Vegas-like sign in the room blinking:  "Johnson is not qualified to be the executive mayor of Sacramento" ? Myself and many others have stated we don't approve of you in an executive mayor capacity because we simply don't think you are qualified for that job. No labels. No vendettas. No union influence. No politics.  What is your response to that criticism? I'd love to know because you have never addressed this criticism to my knowledge.

[On a side note Mayor, I have to say again: It's actually quite remarkable that you continue to shoot yourself in the foot with every errant statement you make. Do you not have PR advisers? Perhaps you do but you simply don't listen to them--which would be yet another reason to vote against promoting you to CEO].

Despite all your dismisiveness, I do agree with you on a few points, Mayor. 

1. I agree it should NOT be about politics.

2. I also agree that the city council should not be obstructing the people's right to vote---albeit for a COMPLETELY different reason than you maintain (and let's not forget you are on shaky ground with that one, considering you went above your pay grade and supported economic sanctions against  Arizona, thus doing the same exact thing you accuse the council of doing: Supressing the people's "voice").

Thanks for listening Mayor Johnson.

Regardless of the court's position that SMI need pass muster with the council first, I believe the council should do the right thing and pass SMI on to their constituents to decide. But not because I want to see Johnson promoted to CEO of Sacramento. I happen to agree with those who also believe in the democratic process and think the people should be allowed to decide this issue for themselves.

Some Johnson detractors opine voters are "too stupid" or "uninformed" to vote on SMI so therefore it should not go to the ballot (which begs the question: do the city council members--save for Waters--feel the same way??).  They say people don't read. Don't understand. Gosh. Shall we disqualify the gubernatorial vote for the same reason? How about the presidency?  Yikes. How is that way of thinking any different than the old south Jim Crow culture that disenfranchised voters simply because of their skin color?

One could apply that same logic to ANY lousy politician whom ever charmed or manipulated his or her way into office only to be despised (or recalled) by the masses later. God knows we have a long and storied history of electing terrible politicians in this country.. yet the vote goes on... thankfully. Protecting status quo by denying the democratic process in the name of "patriotism" is so nonsensical it's hard to process.

Anyway, even if it is true that people are not informed enough about SMI, that's hardly good enough reason to skirt the voting process, matter of fact it's an even better reason to put it up for vote!  If people need to be informed, then SMI opponents can use the process to inform them (and how about doing it with a little more class this time? It's safe to say the character assasination approach has been a dismal failure twice now. Don't make it a 3-PEAT!).

As we celebrate another Independence Day, let's not forget what being independent is all about. Isn't it about thinking for yourself? Forming your own opinions? Taking a stand for what you believe in?  Punching a ballot to be a part of the decision making process? Politicial loyalties are great, and I love the debate as much as anyone, but I don't think we should ever get so passionate and obssesed with them that we feel compelled to deny each other the very right that has made our country so great.. and independent.

Happy INDEPENDENCE day, everyone.

Stay INDEPENDENT! :)

Mark Johnston
Www.JoeSacramento.Com