Arpaio “attacks” Kyl?

sheriff joe.jpg   While we can’t be certain, according to arguments made by Nathan Sproul, Gordon James and The New York Times, it appears that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now “personally attacking Jon Kyl.”  Of course, we don’t believe that for a moment, but read what our good Sheriff had to say about the current immigration bill before the U.S. Senate:

“I don’t like to criticize Congress, but in this case their approach to solving the illegal immigration problem is all wrong,” Arpaio says. “We put people who break the law in jail and that’s exactly what we should be doing with illegal immigrants. Amnesty is not the answer.”

Oh my, here come the rapid responses from Sproul et al, as they savage the Sheriff for his “shameful and divisive attacks.”  We are quite sure that they’ll be calling for his resignation and firing up the autodialers, asking Kyl supporters to call the Sheriff and tell him to “stop attacking Jon Kyl.”  They will next go on national television and decry the Sheriff’s “mudslinging and dirty tactics,” as they tearfully beg him to “stop tearing the Republican Party in two.”

Or maybe not.  Maybe they really don’t think these comments are personal attacks and it was all about wanting an opportunity to take cheap shots at the man who stopped their gravy train, or defeated their wife, or passed Prop 200 over their objections, or mobilized and fired-up the grassroots of the party in a way that no chairman has in recent memory.  Sure, not attacking the Sheriff will make them look like hypocrites, but maybe they don’t care about what they look like.  The goal is what they’re focused on, and that’s a never-ending effort to damage Randy Pullen, regardless of what they do to the Republican Party in the meantime.

The next day or two should tell, as we breathlessly await the barrage that, even now, a conference call somewhere is no doubt outlining!


Comments

  1. Funny stuff. Made me laugh out loud!

    It is obvious that the article is a bit of a parody (although the Arpaio quote is real, I read it on HotAZItGets as well), but the point made is real enough.

    Their farce exposed, what will the Pullen-bashers do with Sheriff Joe?

  2. Great post, Eyes on West!!

  3. First, the Sheriff is not an elected Party official. Second, he didn’t encourage people to barrage Sen. Kyl’s office with angry phone calls, emails and faxes, and then continue to cheer it on. Third, top deputies of the sheriff have not called on Kyl to resign, called him a liar or called him a traitor (like Pullen deputies have done).

    Nice diversionary tactic, but most folks are smart enough to see the difference between Sheriff Joe keeping the discussion on the policy and Pullen making it personal.

  4. Observer says

    “Top Deputies”??? Give me a break. These are local party officials, not so-called deputies. Pullen has no more control over what they say than he does over what the Democrat chairman says.

  5. I agree with you Preston, most people are smart. Sadly, your post confirms that the minority also posts on blogs.

    Pullen has no “deputies” outside of a staff of three people. All of these other party officials do not serve Pullen, they serve the party that elected them. You can’t hold Pullen responsible for them anymore than the President of the United States is responsible for everything that every Republican member of Congress says.

    Eyes’ post merely points out that when Pullen is critical of the bill and encourages its defeat, he is targeted for the ugliest retribution possible.

    When Sheriff Joe does it, we won’t hear a peep.

    Now before you jump to some lame argument about how Sheriff Joe isn’t urging the bill’s defeat, realize that you would be asking us to believe that when he says that the bill “is all wrong” and “not the answer”, he is urging its passage? Puh-leeze.

    Remember that you’re dealing with the majority of folks here, you know, the smart ones? We aren’t going to buy that for a moment.

    Pullen called it a bad bill without mentioning Kyl and he did it as a State Party Chairman representing the party in accordance with its passed resolutions. It was his job to do what he did, especially given the damage the bill was doing to the party.

    Arpaio called it a bad bill without any responsibility to do so. He voluntarily came forward and whacked the stuffing out of it.

    Still, Eyes has it right, because the silence from McCain, Sproul and the rest of the minions has been deafening.

  6. The fundamental difference is that Joe didn’t encourage people to barrage Kyl with calls… Pullen did.

    You don’t even have to be smart to see that one!

  7. Joe is a free agent in his position and can say whatever he pleases, as he has for years. Since when is he the stalwart of Republican ideals? Check out his endorsements from ’06.

    Pullen, who is not a free agent in this regard, expressed his outrage with illustrations to prove his point and watched as other party leaders marched in the same group as those with obscene signs protesting Sen. Kyl. The blanket disregard for the work, the good work, of those who have spoken out against such actions is lame. Calling them names, twisting the story, and add in a little sinister twist to cast a dark shadow over all they do; now that’s original.

    Even Pullen is backtracking on his attack dog posture. (Thank you Trent Franks) He must have had some time to see just how ugly and ineffective such behavior is, not to mention personally damaging and destructive to the party. Four votes, not exactly a mandate.

  8. You would have thought that four votes would have been a mandate if your gal Lisa has won by that amount.

    However, let me more clearly identify the mandate – the UNANIMOUS vote of the State Committeemen on the resolution to oppose Amnesty in any form. That was a clear and controlling mandate, not the vote difference between Randy and Lisa.

    Secondly, I have not seen Randy retreating from his position. Due to the falso charges and innuendos of the Nathanites regarding the original statement, he has had to clarify his position by stating his contempt for the bill while not castigating Senator Kyl.

    Further furor will happen if Kyl’s actions lead to the passage of this horrible bill whether the Senator votes for it or not. He has been a central character in giving this garbage some credibility. The good Senator needs to go back to Washington next week, disavow the bill after hearing from the constituents he was elected to represent and work mightily for its defeat.

    Even Trent Franks does not support the RESULT of Senator Kyl’s work.

  9. Let it go Ann, your gal lost… Its over…

    Keep standing up for us Randy, that’s your job and you’re doing a great job!

    By the way, I just sent in an extra contribution to the state party yesterday. I got a letter from the RNC asking for a contribution and decided to cut them off and shift it to the State GOP.

  10. GOP PK,

    No, I would not think it was a mandate at all. I would have thought it meant we were a party of distinct differences in style if not substance and in need of leadership that embraced all with the idea in mind that support for the party was the first and foremost purpose. Personal agenda is not. The upholding of the state committeemen’s resolution was not the question but the handling of such. This, again, represent a difference in style not substance.

    As for letting go; I was responding to the original post that made specific references to the chair election.

  11. Good move John,

    Everyone should follow his example. Both the State Party and the Maricopa County Republican Committee (MCRC) have been standup on this issue and deserve our financial support. In fact, the MCRC has been on the cutting edge for years and there was this same type of anger from the Nathanites and McCainiacs over the last three or four years as the MCRC stood up for our Platform over the pressure of the elected officials.

    Your money should be deposited with those who are fighting for you, not betraying you.

    azgop.org and maricopagop.org are the websites for more information.

  12. Seriously- we can raise all the $$ that we need in Arizona for the Republican Party.

    We don’t need the national Republicans breathing down our necks, and their money shouldn’t be the deciding factor. If thats the case, I’ll take out a second mortgage to make sure I can give to the Arizona Republican Party.

Leave a Reply