As is my tradition, I got up this morning to watch the Sunday morning talk shows. I don't watch them all even though I could because I have a DVR. On most Sunday's I'll catch "Meet the Press" followed by CBS Sunday Morning and then "Face the Nation."
So I'm flipping channels and I come across TV12's "Sunday Morning Square Off." The lead-in said they were going talk about the recent hearings of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee into the 287(g) program and Arpaio, so I decided to watch that segment. To my mind "Sunday Square Off" isn't the most interesting or intellectually challenging of programs because host Rick Debruhl seems to do all he can to chuck softballs at his guests. There never really seems to be any tough discussion on any issue. Maybe that's the way they designed the program or the type of host Debruhl is, but it's also indicative of the news media in this town and how it covers politics in this state. As Steve Lemons of the New Times is so fond of saying, "I wonder when they'll grow a pair."
So the panel today has three guests: Republican House Representative Rich Crandall (R-19), Democratic House Minority Whip Chad Campbell (D-14) and Arizona Republic Reporter Rob Robb. The Judiciary/Arpaio issue was discussed in the second segment. Debruhl started out by talking about how the hearing was pitched (at least interpreted here in Arizona) as being an hearing about Arpaio, but turned out to be more of a hearing on the 287(g) program and immigration enforcement in general. At this point, Rich Crandall sidestepped the hearing issue by praising Mesa Mayor Scott Smith who met with Arpaio after that silly 2AM Mesa City Hall raid. Crandall called Smith "courageous" for meeting with Arpaio and asking how the two organizations could work better together. Rob Robb chimed in to throw some support behind Arpaio for letting his guys get trained under 287(g), but criticized him for sending hundreds of deputies and posse members into predominantly Hispanic areas of the county and not being able to see that as profiling.
So what did the Democrat's House Minority Whip Chad Campbell have to say? Nothing. Nada. Zip. No support for Mary Rose Wilcox or the delegation that went to Washington. Not a word about supporting the purpose of the hearing, which was to explore civil rights violations that occur in his district against his constituents in his state. Not a word about how looking into the abuses of Arpaio may be a good thing. The only thing we heard from Democratic leadership was a comment on how the state could use the $1.6M back that the legislature gave specifically to Arpaio that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has yet to accept.
I'm sure there's some reason for Democratic leadership to run to the hills whenever Joe Arpaio's name or treatment of Arizona's Hispanic citizens is brought up. But give me a freakin' break; you can't even throw a bone of support to Wilcox? You can't even agree with Democratic leadership at the national level that the investigations are welcome? Why the silence? What specific reelection purpose does it serve?
Mr. Campbell could have said something like this: "While there are clearly people who support what Sheriff Arpaio is doing, there are many others who feel the way he is going about it violates laws and Constitutional rights. The purpose of the hearing wasn't just to go after Arapio, but to explore how an important mission is being misused and U.S. citizens are being treated as criminals only because of their heritage. That's illegal in this country and it should be. If Arpaio survives this investigation unscathed, then what he proclaims must be correct. However, if he doesn't and his ways of using his 287(g) agreement is found to be illegal, he should be held accountable. He's always wanting us to take his word for things and there's nothing wrong with occasionally checking to verify his word is good."
But he didn't. He commented on the money.
I have argued many times that the reason Democrats are so poor at convincing Arizonans there is a better way to do immigration enforcement is because they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to make our views known and succinct. How can anyone know your position if you never talk about it when others are? How can voters know there is a broader perspective to the problem if you don't articulate it? I guess they're supposed to know the Democratic Leadership's position by attending immigration conferences or watching floor C.O.W. debates, or worse yet, by osmosis...like that happens.
This is just
another example of a golden opportunity lost.
Posts
