Arpaio & Thomas Explain Not Seeking AZ Republic Editorial Endorsement

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.

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.

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.


Comments

  1. There a many inaccuracies in this post, but what I find most amusing is the dance around the issue that the Republic may have a big problem with these two illegally arresting other members of the press and seeking to subpoena information on readers and also reporters note and files. Hmm. maybe they have a problem with that.

    BTW, how many of you even know who is on the editorial board?

  2. They (Joe and Andy), like you, are not perfect, as they easily admit. (Check your comment). The ‘who’ of the editorial board is of less interest than the ‘what’ that they spew. Do the readers know or care who they are? What difference does it make, in your opinion?

  3. “Joe and Andy” are elected officials who hold the public trust and locking up journalists and intimidating publications that disagree with them is more that “not being perfect.” I can’t believe you can even suggest that as an excuse. This isn’t a minor mistake.

    OK. So who are the leftists on the board, or is it rather that there are some opinions which differ from local party orthodoxy. I mean, when did Robb become a “liberal.”

  4. Kinda surprised that Thomas’ not doing the Republic interview, he had their endorsement 4 years ago, and I think he might get it again.

    But Joe…no shock there. Dose anyone find it ironic that a guy calling himself the “Toughest Sheriff in America” is unwilling to debate his opponent or meet with Republic editorial writers? And how about the fact that this announcement comes right on the heels of Dowling dropping a lawsuit on the Sheriff and BOS?

  5. Smart move. Why should they waste their time. The Rag is as likely to endorse them in the general as Pravda was to endorse Sakharov.

  6. A really really stupid idea. If they have much opposition at all, then turning of the press…even press you don’t find as friendly is simply stupid. Why put yourself outside the tent like this and isolate people that you need to be working with later on?

    This may appeal to their base to some extent and follows off the “liberal media”
    and “Palin” again, but that only works with hardcore conservatives. And I am not so sure that this strategy of McCain’s with respect to Palin will prove smart for the same reasons I said above.

    You do NOT alienate the press…even if you think that they are not your friends.

    I bet anyone on this list that has run a campaign would agree with me on this one.

  7. The really stupid thing is that as public officials they do have an obligation to stand before the public and explain themselves. Just because the paper doesn’t like them, that is not an excuse to hide from the criticism. Stand up, brave men, and be heard not just in the friendly confines surround by synchophants and toadies. Like it or not, and they don’t, the daily paper is a significant arm of public accountability. Both these guys seem very anxious to control and manipulate their messages and the information people receive and I find that a travesty against the principles of open government and accountability, which all conservatives should espouse. Stand up and take your medicine, gentlemen. The worst that can happen is that the Republic will be critical which will only confirm your worst fears. But that’s the job. If you don’t like it, step out of the arena and let someone else take a shot.

  8. Jack…I agree with you.

  9. Jack et al. Isn’t what this press conference is? A standing up and expressing themselves? And just exactly what makes their moves different from other pols? Those pols DON’T want to control and manipulate their message?

    I don’t agree with you.

  10. I think it’s delicious that they gave The Phoenix Rag the cold shoulder.

  11. The extent to which Arpaio and Thomas limit access to public information which is not related to confidential investigations is unprecedented in my memory. I also don’t know who they invite to their news conference (I presume nothing; I just don’t know). But I’m guessing the Glendale Star wasn’t invited, since they are on the Sheriff’s “cold shoulder” list. Yes, all politicians do that to some degree, and it is easier than ever given the docile and incurious media we have today. But these two are extreme cases.

  12. I follow your blog for a long time and must tell that your articles always prove to be of a high value and quality for readers.

Leave a Reply