http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6741
By Peter B. Gemma
The http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=7748’s job on its agenda. The popular personality—“America’s Toughest Sheriff”, as he likes to be called—is known nationwide for his tough and innovative policies that deter illegal immigration
The September 2009 issue of the glossy lifestyle Phoenix Magazine has a feature entitled Goldwater’s Group Goes After Arpaio. It opines: “Something’s amiss when even the most conservative think tank in Arizona is calling on Sheriff Joe to get his act together”. The Goldwater Institute recently issued a report saying Sheriff Arpaio’s department “has diverted resources away from basic law-enforcement functions to highly publicized immigration sweeps, which are ineffective in policing illegal immigration”. The report goes on to claim that the Maricopa Sheriff’s department’s “effectiveness has been compromised for the past several years by misplaced priorities”.
Significantly, Bolick, the libertarian lawyer who seems to have emerged as the driving force at the Goldwater Institute in the last couple of years, even got to write an MSM Op-Ed in support of his own report: MCSO’s flaws result in misguided mission, By Clint Bolick, December 6, 2008.
The Sheriff responded to Bolick’s criticism by commenting: “When you talk about the Civil Liberties Union I think they treat me better than this guy [Bolick does I never had any trouble in 14 years with the Goldwater Institute [until now and I’ve done a lot of controversial things.”[Think tank condemns Arpaio’s priorities, by JJ Hensley, The Arizona Republic, December 2, 2008
So why are the free market advocates at the Goldwater Institute picking a fight with Sheriff Arpaio?
Might it have something to do with political power and the financial clout of Arizona’s elites?
We’ll get to that speculation in a moment. But first, some background.
Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater was the Republican nominee for President in 1964, 45 years ago. This “conservative” icon passed away in 1998 but his name and political legacy still have weight in some circles.
I use conservative in quotes—and assert his legacy has influence only in some circles—because the meaning of the term “conservative” is useless (i.e., National Review vs. Pat Buchanan). The impact of Goldwater’s politics and positions is lauded by some libertarian-leaning GOPers, but exasperates others on the front lines of public policy fights.
The immigration issue is the prime example.
http://vdare.com/misc/090908_gemma.htm