While the Arizona Republic may not like our policies, the
state’s leading police and border patrol organizations do because they have endorsed our candidacies, as have voters from all political parties.
Why We Could Not & Did Not Seek the Arizona Republic’s Endorsement
Gratified By Support from Police & the People, Not Left-Tilting Newspapers & Criminal Defense Lawyers
John McCain isn’t going to be getting the New York Times endorsement over Barack Obama. And we have a hunch that the Arizona Republic probably isn’t going to be touting our re-election campaigns either.
And that’s OK, because it would seriously confuse our supporters were we to seek the Republic’s editorial endorsement, as candidates typically do.
This is why we took the unusual step of politely and respectfully declining the paper’s recent offer to solicit its support by appearing before its editorial board with our opponents.
After all, the Arizona Republic board has been one of the biggest voices against steps we have successfully taken to reduce Valley crime. Even the paper’s own lawyer has been opposing us outside of its own pages.
Crime reduction is not hyperbole on our part. It is a fact. Are we the only ones responsible for this improvement? Of course not. Police officers and deputy sheriffs on the front lines deserve most of the credit.
But we have taken new forceful steps that have made a difference. And unfortunately the Arizona Republic has systematically opposed many of them.
Most notably, they have opposed our joint efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. Many people once said local law enforcement officials couldn’t make a difference. We are proving otherwise with our hard-hitting, cutting-edge approach. Illegal immigration is down, even leading to significant self-deportation. Crime is down.
This is not a Republican, Independent or Democrat battle. This is everybody’s issue, except the Arizona Republic’s.
We have also been criticized by the paper for pursuing the death penalty, prosecuting illegal immigrants under the human-smuggling law and the employer-sanction law which cracks down on businesses knowingly hiring
illegal immigrants.
illegal immigrants.
In opposing our candidacies the Republic will likely cite issues other than tough-on-crime policies and achievements.
They will likely talk about the Phoenix New Times illegally publishing Sheriff Arpaio’s home address and our respective office’s conduct after the fact.
They will talk about an approach toward judges they thought was too tough in the aftermath of some judges refusing to implement the voter-approved Proposition 100. This measure instructed the criminal justice system to deny bail to illegal immigrants committing heinous crimes.
They will talk about our opponents in glowing terms while ignoring their own research which would alert the public to embarrassing, disgusting or way too soft on crime information about our opponents.
Are we perfect public servants? We are not. We make mistakes like everyone else and learn from them.
But we continue to do many more good things right than wrong. That’s why crime has dropped and bad guys are spending more time and longer times behind
bars. So while the Arizona Republic may not like our policies, the
state’s leading police and border patrol organizations do because they have endorsed our candidacies, as have voters from all political parties.
bars. So while the Arizona Republic may not like our policies, the
state’s leading police and border patrol organizations do because they have endorsed our candidacies, as have voters from all political parties.
So as you contemplate the Republic’s commentary consider their editorial pages
have swung so far to the left that they will actually suggest changing
out the County Sheriff and County Attorney for opponents favored by the
attorneys of Valley criminals and open border activists, and at a time
when we are starting to win more of the war on crime. Then again, the
New York Times didn’t endorse Mayor Giuliani despite his success
cleaning up New York City either. The New York Times was out of touch. The Arizona Republic editorial board is out of touch.
have swung so far to the left that they will actually suggest changing
out the County Sheriff and County Attorney for opponents favored by the
attorneys of Valley criminals and open border activists, and at a time
when we are starting to win more of the war on crime. Then again, the
New York Times didn’t endorse Mayor Giuliani despite his success
cleaning up New York City either. The New York Times was out of touch. The Arizona Republic editorial board is out of touch.
When I was commuting to Arizona for IBM I had the good fortune to meet Sheriff Arpaio. I wish we had a sheriff of his caliber (pun intended) in New Hanover County North Carolina. Our sheriff thinks that illegal aliens are the finest citizens and cannot do wrong.
I wish both candidates good fortune in the election and I am lobbying my contacts in Arizona for contributions and votes.
The Tolerance Über Alles Principle
The following is a net blogger post by "Mark D.” regarding an article http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html by Theodore Dalrymple who observed that the most trivial violation of "political correctness” called down the greatest and most immediate response by British law enforcement, while the most egregious violent crimes went ignored:
Mark D. writes:
“May I suggest that, grounded in liberal anthropology, anarcho-tyranny is perfectly consistent, and in fact required… Liberal anthropology is derived from Nietzsche: it affirms the sovereignty of the individual will, that the individual human will is the highest and best value, and asserts that the individual will is the arbiter of all value. Within society, all individual human wills are considered of equal value, validity, and worth; and there is no principle (e.g., God) by which to discern among them. Society is then a contest of a will to power, of asserting one's preferences over those of others.
“On the ‘anarcho’ side, this translates into affirmation of the individual human will over such traditional values as private property, public order, and even human life. Abortion is the perfect example of this. If a crime of violence is committed, a conviction may be sustained, but a long incarceration is viewed with suspicion, as the imposition of a collective will over and above the highest good – the individual will that committed the crime. It is not legitimate within a liberal community to assert the communal will over (and) against an individual human will (unless, of course, that individual human will contests the über principle of liberalism itself)… .”
Since Sheriff Arpaio insists that convicted felons pay a price, he is “imposing the collective will over and above the highest good – the individual will that committed the crime.” That is why the Left hates him so much.
He's a good man doing a fine and necessary job. And he wouldn't last three weeks up here in the Northeast. Someone would bring him up on charges of crushing their fragile egos or something similar. Asserting his opinion over their collective wills on matters of law, order, justice, and common sense – Now there's a crime!