Joe Arpaio

Will 'America's Toughest Sheriff' Become America's Most Unemployed Sheriff?

Tuesday could be the swan song for the infamous Sheriff Joe, who is dragging in polls and facing criminal contempt charges.

|

Anthony Behar/Sipa USA/Newscom

By Tuesday night, the long and controversial reign of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the media-seeking face of America's "tough-on-crime" brand of justice, could be another political casualty of Donald Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric and changing U.S. opinions on crime.

The Arizona sheriff is in the fight of his political life, facing millions of dollars in attacks from super PACs and a grassroots Latino get-out-the-vote effort emboldened by Trump—not to mention criminal contempt charges that led Reason to ponder if he could end up wearing pink underwear in his own jail.

All of these factors have dragged down Arpaio's once-sturdy favorability ratings and poll numbers in Maricopa County, where he has cruised to victory five times since being elected in 1993.

Arpaio made a name for himself with his unconventional and demeaning jail, where inmates live in a tent city in the sweltering desert heat and wear old-timey striped uniforms, as well as the aforementioned pink underwear. He further raised his national profile by ordering large-scale sweeps of Latino neighborhoods and traffic stops of Latino drivers to round up illegal immigrants. His litany of offenses against decency and constitutional principles led Reason to name him one of its "45 enemies of freedom" in 2013.

But for being such an outspoken proponent of the rule of law, Arpaio has never been a fan of the law as it applies to himself. He repeatedly flouted orders by a U.S. district court judge to improve the conditions inside the jail and cease the unconstitutional racial profiling of Latinos, leading the U.S. Attorney's Office to charge him with criminal contempt of court in mid-October.

Despite condemnations from national civil rights groups and federal courts, Arpaio has largely been politically untouchable. In 2012, Arpaio won reelection by six points, and in 2008 he clobbered his opponent by 13 points.

This election, however, has been different.

Arpaio has been an outspoken supporter of Trump, and Trump has returned the favor. The huge unfavorables that have haunted the Trump campaign appear to be dragging down Arpaio as well. A mid-October poll by the Morrison Institute and Arizona Republic found Arpaio trailing his opponent, retired Phoenix police officer Paul Penzone, by 15 points. The Morrison Institute found Arpaio's unfavorable rating with white voters at 53 percent.

"I don't know that anyone can say with confidence, if Arpaio is voted out or if Clinton wins in Arizona, whether that really means we're a purple or blue state going forward," Thom Reilly of the Morrison Institute told the L.A. Times. "But his deficit is significant."

Other polling is scant, but if any election could be the one to unseat Arpaio, it's this one, and local and national groups have poured all their resources into trying to make it happen.

Arpaio has been hit with a torrent of out-of-state money opposing him. Politico reported Friday that Maricopa Strong, a super PAC connected to liberal mega-donor George Soros, had spent $2.9 million in ad blitzes against Arpaio. Soros is dropping millions of dollars in local law enforcement races across the country this cycle in attempt to oust conservative district attorneys and sheriffs.

Arpaio's campaign filed a complaint in late October accusing the group of violating campaign finance laws. "It's bad enough that a far-left globalist like George Soros is trying to buy a Sheriff's Office here in Maricopa County, but now we see they're breaking the law in an effort to do so," Arpaio campaign spokesman Chad Willems said in a statement to the Arizona Republic. "The voters of Maricopa County should be outraged."

Meanwhile, the group Bazta Arpaio ("stop Arpaio") has been mobilizing Latino voters to get the polls Tuesday. Those efforts have contributed to Arizona leading the nation in early voting by Latinos, another grim sign for the Arpaio campaign.

Bazta Arpaio and other groups plan on holding an "Arpaio retirement party" outside his Phoenix office on election night. If the vote swings the way activists think it's moving, it should be quite the party.

NEXT: Congressman Threatens Major Networks With Hearings On 'Media Bias'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So my FB is alight with stories about a massive Latino turnout in Nevada (I presume in early voting). But I’m confused – I thought news organizations weren’t allowed to report on poll results until after polls actually close. Do I have that wrong?

    1. It was self imposed rule, I thought. Because Trump is Adolf Hitler, of course, the old rules don’t apply.

      1. You know who else was Adolf Hitler?

        1. Mitt Romney, and John McCain, and George W. Bush, and Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon, and Barry Goldwater, and….and….and?

          1. Every Republican except for William Weld and, for some years, Arlen Specter.

          2. Oh for fucks sake McCain was treated positively by both the media and even most centrist and liberals. Romney wasn’t treated poorly either.

          1. I’d like to change my answer to Jonathan Gruber.

        2. Winston’s mom?

        3. Moe Howard?

        4. Charlie Chaplin?

        5. Charlie Chaplin?

        6. If you inverted the question, you could list countless Downfall parodies.

        7. Judging by the comments here… Hillary Clinton and TOTALLY NOT DONALD TRUMP WHO IS WAY BETTER SOMEHOW.

          1. Clinton is Hitler.
            Trump is Mussolini.

    2. They’re allowed to report on the number of early-voting voters, and they will, as long as it’s reinforcing the narrative that Hillary’s already won and there’s really no point in your bothering to vote tomorrow if you’re a Trump voter.

      1. One of the headlines was “Trump has probably already lost Nevada”. I think. They may have dropped the “probably”

        I’m a no-compromises kind of guy when it comes to the 1A, but maybe the election commission ought not to release this sort of information (unless it’s all coming from exit polls)

        1. If you search “Trump has probably already lost Nevada” in Google, the results all relate to an analyst making that claim (e.g., http://www.businessinsider.com…..on-2016-11). It’s not being presented as an actually final fact.

          1. It’s definitely being presented in certain circles as “Nevada is pretty much decided for Hillary”

          2. If you search “Trump has probably already lost Nevada” in Google, the results all relate to an analyst making that claim

            No, he’s a TOP POLITICAL ANALYST. You left out the TOP part. Who is this Top. Man., you ask? well he’s

            Jon Ralston, a KNTV political analyst

            a local TV news affiliate station pundit. You don’t get to be in the big leagues of local broadcast if you’re not a Top. Man. .

        2. Err, if Hillary has already won then there would still be a point for Trump voters (and any 3rd party voters) to vote tomorrow, to reduce as much as possible to size of her victory and make sure she went in with little to no mandate.

          On the other hand if you are a Hillary voter only the most comitted voters care about her margin of victory and so very few of them would have a motive to actually go vote.

          Basically sending the message that candidate X has it in the bag and the election is over only works against candidate X and helps their competition.

          1. Not so sure of that. I don’t think most people care about mandates. They care about wins.

        3. It’s not based on any polls at all, it’s just based on how many registered Democrat and how many registered Republican voters are early-voting and the assumption that all Democrats are voting for Hillary. If you dig a little deeper, they get into a comparison of how many early voters there were in previous years compared to this year and what the margin of victory was for Obama with that early-voting edge. But there really aren’t enough data points to reliably argue that higher Democrat early-voting equals higher margin-of-victory for Democrats. (And given the number of cross-over votes Trump got in the primaries and the conventional wisdom that Trump appeals to a hell of a lot of white blue-collar Democrats, I’d be really, really sceptical of the assumption that those Democrat early-voters are all Hillary voters.)

    3. I thought Latinx was the preferred nomenclature now?

      1. Aztlanteco is most correct.

          1. doesn’t the ‘x’ belong closer to the ‘tl’? Something like “Aztxlantecoco”

        1. Mixed race is most accurate.

          1. Mezcalinos?

          2. But not very precise.

            1. A varying mixture of native Americans bloodlines (such as Aztecs), Spanish colonist, and African slave.

      2. Gender is not binary. Let a thousand genders bloom.

        1. We’ll all be called Beverly.

          1. Shirley — you jest.

      3. Latinx

        I’ve only seen this in print…
        Is this pronounced Lah-TEENX ?

        1. La TEENKS — rhymes with dinks or thinks or sinks (which is racist in this context, so don’t use it).

    4. Their vote is taken for granted, duh.

      1. Minority is DNA based. Determinism used to be part of Progressivism, then it was shunned (think E O Wilson), but now it’s back. Tabula rasa applies only to white privilege.

    5. There are no “poll results” being reported. These reports about early voting are generally about the number of ballots being returned. The contents of those ballots aren’t being reported, rather the party affiliation of people returning ballots is publicly available in most (maybe all?) states and some states also collect demographic information about registered voters. The media then infers what the significance of that is, but since registered Democrats are free to vote for other candidates, saying that 55% of early ballots were returned by Democrats doesn’t necessarily equate to Clinton winning 55% of the votes contained in those ballots.

      1. Got it, thanks.

    6. I know the actual vote results aren’t to be reported until then, but I don’t think that applies to the demographics of voters.

  2. As Bo Dietl says in Goodfellas, “Buh-bye, dickhead! Hahaha”

    1. “You picked the wrong parish to haul ass through, boy! Nobody cuts and runs on Sheriff J.W. Pepper!”

      1. God I love that movie.

  3. So… yeah…. my wife and I just voted for Trump. Was gonna go Gay Jay, but then we thought of the lol’s if Trump wins.

    1. How in the fuck is everyone voting now?

      1. How else do you vote three or four times per election. You might be recognized if you show up several times in one day.

      2. The DST change fucks everything up.

      3. Some states have early voting before the general election day.

      4. I’m voting this afternoon. But I don’t live in a retarded state like yours.

        1. Are you saying the state of your retardedness has nothing to do with where you live?

  4. There’s no good guy in this story.

    1. There’s no bad guy, either. There’s only you and me and we just disagree.

      1. No fair, Millenials will not get that reference

        1. Release date: 1977

          I think most Gen X’ers won’t get it either: I had to look it up.

          1. I think most Gen X’ers won’t get it either:

            Heh. I got it right out of the chute.

            I’ll bet most Gen X’ers were like me and fed a steady diet of ABBA, Neil Daimond, Mellssa Manchester, Anne Murray, and Linda Ronstadt by parents’ power over the radio dial. If Gen X’ers can recognise Gordon Lightfoot’s songs, they’ll recognise this one as well.

          2. Besides, many Millennials are into that, “Old Soul/Born in the Wrong Generation,” Trope. A cursory glance of YooToob commentary of claimed Millennials tends to suggest this.

        2. So, let’s leave it alone.

  5. Justice would demand that Sheriff Joe get indicted, tried, and sentenced to his own jail for ten years, and when he gets out he’ll lose his pension and be seized upon and eaten by wild armadillos.

    Losing his bid for reelection would be an acceptable second choice.

    1. Armadillos only have four tiny teeth. They could never get through Sheriff Joe’s leathery hide.

      1. With enough time and patience, water wears away the hardest stone.

        1. True. Armadillos do get bored easily, so we’ll need to keep them supplied with Ritalin…

          1. I assumed the preference for armadillos was related to the fact that armadillos are the only animals besides humans that carry leprosy.

          2. New reality show:
            “Armadillos on Meth”

    2. No armadillos here. Maybe sub in a troupe of rampaging Coatimundi

  6. Bazta Arpaio and other groups plan on holding an “Arpaio retirement party” outside his Phoenix office on election night. If the vote swings the way activists think it’s moving, it should be quite the party.

    I hear Joe will be supplying the tear gas and batons. Glad to see him go if the polls are right but I don’t think I would attend that party as I have a feeling it will get out of hand.

  7. I used to find Arpaio deplorable.

    Now that the people who call him deplorable have become such a threat to the rule of law, I’m reevaluating everything.

    If the progressives don’t care about the rule of law so long as ignoring it furthers their objectives, it’s hard to blame their opponents for doing likewise. I’m not justifying violating anybody’s rights, but in terms of strategy, what’s so different here?

    He might be unpopular, he doesn’t treat convicted felons well, and he discourages illegal aliens from flocking into or through his county?

    How’s he doing otherwise? Did he accept money from foreign governments while he was the Secretary of State?

    If the American people can’t hold faith in the rule of law in the near future, not sure I’ll begrudge locals from pursuing their own objectives the way I used to.

    What were they supposed to do? Rely on the rule of law?

    LOL

    1. “Now that the people who call him deplorable have become such a threat to the rule of law, I’m reevaluating everything.

      If the progressives don’t care about the rule of law so long as ignoring it furthers their objectives, it’s hard to blame their opponents for doing likewise. I’m not justifying violating anybody’s rights, but in terms of strategy, what’s so different here?”

      The problem with your thinking here is that it then becomes a game of each side accusing the other of starting it. Progressives could reply to your comment with “well conservatives didn’t care when Arpaio or Bush, etc. violated the rule of law so why should I care with Clinton?” Excusing one side’s behavior because of the other side’s behavior or hypocrisy is itself hypocritical and is essentially doing the same thing you’re condemning other people for.

      1. “The problem with your thinking here is that it then becomes a game of each side accusing the other of starting it. “

        It isn’t my thinking that’s the problem.

        It’s the way of the universe.

        Once the rule of law becomes a laughing stock, these are the consequences . . . whether I like them or not.

        1. I’m saying it is a problem (not necessarily the problem), because that’s how everyone who excuses the violations of rule of law by their side thinks. “Well the other side doesn’t care, so why should I?” Obviously you aren’t the first or only person to think this way, I’m just saying that this line of reasoning is exactly the source of the problem you identify.

    2. It is funny to me that he got in trouble for ignoring an order not to enforce immigration laws. Is that even a legal court order?

      1. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

    3. Arpaio served in the DEA for 25 years. He’s a shitbag based on that alone.

      1. More than enough for me.

      2. He was a shitbag.

        If he’s actually upholding the rule of law in a country where that’s on short order from the top on down, maybe shitbags really are the new good guys.

        An exercise in subjectivity perhaps, but such is life.

        Sometimes it takes an asshole.

        I used to work with a surgeon who was a real asshole. He’d crack childrens’ rib cages open and cut into their tickers. Sometimes they died on the table. He’d tell the screaming mother, scrub up and do the same surgery again on the next kid. Maybe you need to be an asshole to do that job and do it well.

        Drill sergeants are assholes. Sometimes generals have to order their men into attacking positions and he knows some of them are going to die. He gives them their orders anyway–maybe being an asshole that way makes him a good general.

        If the federal government won’t uphold the rule of law, maybe it takes an asshole to do it locally.

        If Hillary Clinton gets elected President despite taking money from foreign governments and paying operatives to instigate violence at Trump events–completely disregarding propriety and the rule of law in the process–Arpaio is going to seem a lot less like an asshole than he used to for upholding the rule of law.

        1. I’m frequently surprised at the depths to which commenters on an ostensibly libertarian site will sink in the name of opposing Hillary Clinton. Gotta say I would not have called anyone holding up as a paragon of the rule of law a guy who routinely violates the fourth and fifth amendments.

          1. The problem with Hillary Clinton is that she has a demonstrate history of disregarding the rule of law.

            And the problem is that cross culturally and throughout history, the transformation from a Republic to an empire is marked by an executive who disregards the rule of law–and gets elected anyway.

            I won’t ignore that threat. I think Hillary Clinton presents a serious threat to the rule of law, and just because I can accurately describe that threat doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

            “If he’s actually upholding the rule of law in a country where that’s on short order from the top on down, maybe shitbags really are the new good guys.”

            That’s the kind of reaction people will have to Hillary Clinton being elected President–whether we like it or not.

            1. Well you seem to like it since you’re going to bat for a guy who has zero respect for the law. I mean I guess whatever you have to tell yourself to finally make those Clintons pay huh?

              1. I’ve repeatedly compared him to Hillary.

                As awful as Hillary is, that isn’t really going to bat for him.

                Being compared favorably to a crook like Hillary isn’t a compliment.

                If I were on a jury for a defamation case, and someone had been compared to Hillary, that might be enough to establish malice in my book.

    4. “If the American people can’t hold faith in the rule of law in the near future, not sure I’ll begrudge locals from pursuing their own objectives the way I used to.”

      Yup. That’s what happens when the rule of law breaks down, which it certainly is doing so at the highest economic and political levels here.

    5. It’s either Arpaio or Hillary. Those are the only two options.

      1. I’m not saying that, but undermining the rule of law from the top has consequences.

        If someone can disregard the rule of law and be elected President anyway, a lot of people aren’t going to understand why Joe Arpaio not being high minded is a problem anymore.

    6. I see what you’re saying….but no, Joe Arpaio is still a piece of garbage.

    7. No, Kenny, but he did rough up journalists critical of him.

      He also partnered up with a corrupt DA to intimidate judges who gave rulings that he disagreed with, including the censure of a deputy who stole documents from a defense attorney in court and delivered them to a prosecutor.

      Either one of those items is disqualifying.

      1. I heard he ate a . . . what are those called . . . a Satanic supper?

        Yeah, the point is that when our chief executive is elected President despite disregarding the rule of law, more people aren’t going to look at Arpaio disregarding the rule of law as being a problem by itself anymore.

        They’ll look at it the way progressives look at Hillary. She may have disregarded the rule of law, but at least it was for a good cause!!!

        If we’re going to elect people to be President despite having disregarded the rule of law, then their motives may be all that matters to most people.

        Is he upholding the laws that matter to the people in his county?

        Is he doing what the people in his county want him to do?

        If not being high minded doesn’t matter to the voters, then it might as well not matter at all.

        1. Spirit dinner!

    8. The rule of law is a fairy tale that you really should have outgrown by now.

      1. And so is libertarianism, or minarchism, and certainly ideological anarchy.

        It’s a useful fiction.

      2. The rule of law is the linchpin of our rights.

        “Congress shall make no law . . . “.

        We’ve had laws that violate our rights, but making it so the law doesn’t matter anymore–that’s a new one for us.

        President Hillary will have executive privilege, the power to pardon, the bully pulpit, and a media environment that might not notice if she turned into a wolf and hunted children every full moon.

        1. Laws only mean what the people who enforce them think they mean. The text itself might as well be in Klingon.

          1. The rule of law only matters as much as the voters are willing to make their leaders pay at the polls for disregarding it.

            I bet Jefferson and Madison hardly considered it a possibility that the American people would vote for a Secretary of State that accepted money from a foreign government to become President.

        2. So what was Prohibition?

    9. Now that the people who call him deplorable have become such a threat to the rule of law, I’m reevaluating everything.

      So much this. 8-(

    10. If the progressives don’t care about the rule of law so long as ignoring it furthers their objectives, it’s hard to blame their opponents for doing likewise. I’m not justifying violating anybody’s rights, but…

      1. Yes, you fucking are making excuses for it.

      2. No, it isn’t hard to blame a fascist shitheel for being a fascist shitheel. Arpaio and his enablers don’t do what they do because Clinton took money from foreign governments.

      1. “Yes, you fucking are making excuses for it.”

        No, I’m not. Just because I see what’s happening and why doesn’t mean I like it or that I’m making excuses for it.

        Also, you can tell because I haven’t made excuses for it anywhere.

        “Arpaio and his enablers don’t do what they do because Clinton took money from foreign governments.”

        Work on you reading comprehension.

        What I’m saying is mostly about the voters and us.

        If the choice stops being between people who uphold the rule of law and people who disregard it, then our alternatives become limited to leaders who disregard the the rule of law for reasons we like and leaders who disregard the rule of law for reasons we don’t like.

        Because I don’t want it to be that way doesn’t mean I have to pretend that isn’t the way it is.

    11. he doesn’t treat convicted felons well

      Good thing that being a “convicted felon” means you did something really really wrong. Like possessing any amount of marijuana “for sale.” If “convicted felons” didn’t do such purely evil things, mistreating such people might be unjust.

      1. Again, we’re not just talking about the way libertarians see things.

        We’re talking about the general public.

        If the President doesn’t give a shit about high mindedness and is willing to disregard the law to enrich herself and her family and get her way on policy, then why should the people who voted against her care about high mindedness in their leaders anymore?

        We’re going to turn into something like pacifists responding to Nazi aggression.

        Well, if we just keep taking the high road, maybe the Hillaries of the world will leave us alone!

        I’m not sure how persuasive that argument is going to be in the future. I suspect Hillary’s political enemies in the electorate will simply want a strongman who will disregard the law according to their preferences.

        Not a libertarian.

  8. And who said there was no silver lining to this election? But, I won’t be surprised if he wins. Lot of old people down there in their sun, scared of brown skinned people, anyone under 60, and falling in the tub.
    There is a reason this guy has won since 93.

    1. Any guess why the old people “down there” are “scared of brown skinned people”.

      1. Hitler?

        1. Dark Hitler.

          see issues #31-34 for the origin story.

          1. I liked the MechaHitler storyline better, but i think i’m in the minority there.

            1. I sort of prefer the female HitlHer version from the alternate universe. Prime Hitler has way too much backstory and wonky continuity to try and keep up with.

              1. Crisis of Infinite Hitlers was supposed to resolve all that.

          2. The last issue #34, where Dark Hitler rises to power- aka Rule 34?

      2. Aged digestive systems don’t cope well with chalupas.

      3. They are only as bright as you are?

      4. Um, because many older people have been convinced by marketers that they are prey? That anyone looking for work is really just going to rob them and murder them and leave their bodies in the basement where they won’t be found until January when the kids come out for their yearly visit?

        1. Or maybe experience has convinced some old people they are prey and they want no more such experience.

    2. I imagine he’s has the over 50 vote locked down tight, which includes all the old people in Sun City West and across the valley.

      But still, high Latino turnout plus younger white voters bailing on him should be enough to sink him.

  9. “I don’t know that anyone can say with confidence, if Arpaio is voted out or if Clinton wins in Arizona, whether that really means we’re a purple or blue state going forward,” Thom Reilly of the Morrison Institute told the L.A. Times. “But his deficit is significant.”

    Nonsense, Arizona is still reliably red. I’m very sure Trump is going to win here tomorrow, just by an uncomfortably small margin. If AZ were really turning blue/purple McCain wouldn’t be clobbering Kirkpatrick by 10-15 points. It’s entirely because Trump has pissed off Latinos.

    1. “It’s entirely because Trump has pissed off Latinos.”

      That is the “accepted wisdom”, but the numbers tell a different story…..like how Trump is doing better than Romney in most Latino polling.

      Maybe the legal Latinos are just as sick of the free loading illegals as the gringos are.

  10. The Arizona sheriff is in the fight of his political life […] not to mention criminal contempt charges that led Reason to ponder if he could end up wearing pink underwear in his own jail.

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

    “I don’t know that anyone can say with confidence, if Arpaio is voted out or if Clinton wins in Arizona, whether that really means we’re a purple or blue state going forward,” Thom Reilly of the Morrison Institute told the L.A. Times. “But his deficit is significant.”

    It could also mean that Arizonians have finally grown tired of his antics and American citizens who presumably look like the Frito Bandito do not find his particular distaste for them that funny anymore.

    1. They’re tired of tripping over all the serape-clad Mexicans napping under saguaro cacti with their sombreros pulled down over their faces.

      1. feces, not faces.

  11. Sheriff Joe would make criminals wear pink jump suits and bivouac in the hot Arizona dessert after a day of breaking rocks.

    Most criminals are males in the age group of 16 to 25. So, if you are the parent of one, is that the worst that would become of your child? Do you think it would be better if your child spent a longer term in the gray walls of a prison?

    Short, but harsher, sentences are better than long and lighter ones. I am deplorable.

    1. [I]Sheriff Joe would make criminals wear pink jump suits and bivouac in the hot Arizona dessert after a day of breaking rocks.[/I]

      So basically in a giant pile of freshly fried churros with spicy Mexican chocolate?

  12. Fuck Sheriff Joe. A wood chipper is too good for his neo-fascist ass.

    1. I don’t understand the term “neo-fascist”. Was there something wrong with “fascist” that made you made you put “neo-” in front of it? I’ll grant you that there’s a fascist in Sheriff Joe, but why the “Neo”?

  13. Arpaio, Panzone, Ciaramerella, Rufus.

    Too many wops in this plot.

  14. IIRC, they’re charging Arpaio with “petty” contempt, punishable by a maximum of six months in prison.

    I suspect the reason is that federal courts can try petty contempts without juries.

    In other words, they’re pretending that this crime isn’t serious enough for a jury trial.

    Is that really a good enough basis for denying 6th Amendment rights? For one thing, who *really* believes the charges aren’t serious?

    1. Of course, I’m only defending jury trials here because I want police to abuse their power without accountability.

      /sarc

  15. Lots of people here falling for the “at least he enforces the law” nonsense that Arpaio and his fans like to proclaim. But he doesn’t. Professional law enforcement people (of which we have, thankfully, a lot in this area) look at Arpaio as an attention-seeking clown. He has no idea how to deploy law-enforcement resources, which is why lots and lots of serious cases, like rape and child molestation, get closed with no resolution. It’s well known that Arpaio goes after dishwashers and landscapers because that’s what he, and his agency, are capable of. The hard stuff is left to the professional agencies. Arpaio is good at getting himself on television, but he’s a buffoon when it comes to actual crime fighting. You can find a picture of him riding in his decommissioned army tank, touting his “war on drugs,” but you won’t find him or his deputies anywhere near the real fights with real nasty drug gangs. Arpaio is what he has always been – a cartoon sheriff, good at media manipulation, good at slogans, but behind the facade he’s a balloon full of hot air. I’m a right-wing guy but I have no time for that clown. I’m also a law-and-order guy, which is why I detest that puffed up pile of incompetence. There are serious lawmen and women out there working hard for us while Arpaio holds press conferences and talks about what a tough guy he is. Cops know the difference between a tough guy and a tough talker. Arpaio is about as phony as you can find in a politician.

  16. Lots of people here falling for the “at least he enforces the law” nonsense that Arpaio and his fans like to proclaim. But he doesn’t. Professional law enforcement people (of which we have, thankfully, a lot in this area) look at Arpaio as an attention-seeking clown. He has no idea how to deploy law-enforcement resources, which is why lots and lots of serious cases, like rape and child molestation, get closed with no resolution. It’s well known that Arpaio goes after dishwashers and landscapers because that’s what he, and his agency, are capable of. The hard stuff is left to the professional agencies. Arpaio is good at getting himself on television, but he’s a buffoon when it comes to actual crime fighting. You can find a picture of him riding in his decommissioned army tank, touting his “war on drugs,” but you won’t find him or his deputies anywhere near the real fights with real nasty drug gangs. Arpaio is what he has always been – a cartoon sheriff, good at media manipulation, good at slogans, but behind the facade he’s a balloon full of hot air. I’m a right-wing guy but I have no time for that clown. I’m also a law-and-order guy, which is why I detest that puffed up pile of incompetence. There are serious lawmen and women out there working hard for us while Arpaio holds press conferences and talks about what a tough guy he is. Cops know the difference between a tough guy and a tough talker. Arpaio is about as phony as you can find in a politician.

  17. Lots of people here falling for the “at least he enforces the law” nonsense that Arpaio and his fans like to proclaim. But he doesn’t. Professional law enforcement people (of which we have, thankfully, a lot in this area) look at Arpaio as an attention-seeking clown. He has no idea how to deploy law-enforcement resources, which is why lots and lots of serious cases, like rape and child molestation, get closed with no resolution. It’s well known that Arpaio goes after dishwashers and landscapers because that’s what he, and his agency, are capable of. The hard stuff is left to the professional agencies. Arpaio is good at getting himself on television, but he’s a buffoon when it comes to actual crime fighting. You can find a picture of him riding in his decommissioned army tank, touting his “war on drugs,” but you won’t find him or his deputies anywhere near the real fights with real nasty drug gangs. Arpaio is what he has always been – a cartoon sheriff, good at media manipulation, good at slogans, but behind the facade he’s a balloon full of hot air. I’m a right-wing guy but I have no time for that clown. I’m also a law-and-order guy, which is why I detest that puffed up pile of incompetence. There are serious lawmen and women out there working hard for us while Arpaio holds press conferences and talks about what a tough guy he is. Cops know the difference between a tough guy and a tough talker. Arpaio is about as phony as you can find in a politician.

  18. And I’m SORRY for the double post. I’m sure it was somebody else’s fault. Isn’t everything?

  19. Make that “triple post.” Somebody’s really in trouble…

    1. You have immediately vacated your right to call Arpaio “an attention-seeking clown” after all of your triple-posting showmanship here.

      For shame.

      1. I am shamed. In triplicate. But I insist on the right to call Arpaio names.

  20. Adaption, arguments notwithstanding, had some good ideas, though respecting what seems his support??? for Asset Forfeiture, aka Civil Asset Forfeiture, I wonder. I don’t live and vote in that part of the country, so my thoughts/comments lack actual impact, even the limited impact that an individual voters actions might have.

  21. OOPS! Pardon my poor typing. The first word in my post, the man’s name should be Arpaio, not what came out.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.