I watched the comment fly all day on the Mecum post (below) and have to admit that I agree with a lot of what our readers have said on both sides. But allow me to clarify even more.
The word “lynch mob” came up several times and I would have to agree with those who brought it up that we need to be careful not to become one.
We know nothing about the relationship betweet Mr. Mecum and the woman mentioned in the complaint. It could have been an acquaintance or even romantic situation but that is none of our business. If Brett was infatuated to the point of pursuing her or in today’s politically correct language “stalking” her, she obviously didn’t harbor the same feelings and felt compelled to file a complaint with the authorities.
I am surprised that he felt that Voter Vault was the most appropriate way to find out how to get in contact with her. Why not use Facebook, the phonebook or the Maricopa County Assessor’s website which contains the names and addresses of individual homeowners? Unless she was a renter, he could have stayed within the boundaries of the law by accessing another source of data. However Commenter #29 has a point if that is what the Voter Vault agreement actually states. As a precinct committeeman, I’ve had to sign a non-disclosure usage agreement to access voter data. And it’s hard to argue with the fact that the law states that it is a class 6 felony. Of anyone who should know the terms and conditions of using Voter Vault and it’s proper usage, you would expect it to be a party official. Right?
Let’s face it, incidents like this whether fabricated, conspired or true, are a serious public relations problem for the Arizona Republican Party. I would presume that the State Executve Committee would investigate and make a decision whether there are personnel issues it needs to address and whether it needs to take actions to avoid further public relations or even liability issues. Any inquiry by the EC should be thorough and deliberative and avoid embracing a lynch mob mentality.
I don’t know if Brett has “enemies,” as he claims, who want to destroy his career. We know very little about the woman Brett was pursuing. Could she have been a Democrat trying to set him up? Thus far, she hasn’t stepped forward to verify her story. That leaves it up to MCSO to make a determination.
To the broader question. This is where I would really love our reader’s feedback. Should incidents like this ever be posted on Sonoran Alliance? I decided to allow the post to stand because it was not merely a disagreement over policy matters. In the past we have covered stories about Republicans who have been caught doing illegal or unethical activities. Commenter #9 alluded to Mark Sanford, Larry Craig and Mark Foley – all Republicans who did something that got them into trouble and hurt the party (and probably cost elections from a collateral damage standpoint).
Would our readers prefer NOT to see posts that reveal Republicans who break the law or act unethical? Is it better if we sweep it under the carpet, look the other way or just remain silent? Does our silence equate to condoning these acts and ultimately causing more damage? Democrats are always quick to remind us about the log in our own eyes whenever we point out the splinter in theirs. Has anyone in our party ever thought about getting our own house in order or, do we always want to respond with, “well, they do it too?”
Back to the question. Are posts like the Mecum post from the “genre” of the circular firing squad or do they really have a value in the long-run? Do they hurt us more than help us and do they restore credibility to our principles and agenda? I always believed that we were the party of reason, consistency and moral absolutes. If we can’t strive for those ideals then what’s the point of trying to make our lives and country a better place?
Now it’s your turn…