Well, National Review Online editors, the whole Sheriff Joe and the birthers thing was so silly you had to expend a whole editorial on it, huh? Yup, anybody who’s ever even passed through Maricopa County is now on your list and in your sights, because, according to the last few lines of your editorial, even if you oppose higher taxes, you are a nutcase if you ever shook Joe Arpaio’s hand.
Republicans who have chosen to associate with the birthers have done their party and their country a disservice. And as Sheriff Arpaio settles comfortably into that political mental ward, the same must be said of those Republicans who choose to associate themselves with him more broadly. Those who cannot distinguish between the birthers’ flim-flam and the critical questions that face our nation in 2012 will not win and do not deserve to.
Just what does that mean, NRO? Those who associate with the sheriff “more broadly” are the same as those who associate with him on the birther thing? Are you implying that those on Joe’s side in upholding the laws of Arizona and the United States against illegal immigration are the same as ‘birther supporters’? And if you are opposed to coddling prisoners, ala the sheriff’s pink underwear and tent city schemes, you need to either offer up an apology or have your sponsors boycotted? Are you being spoon fed these lines from Media Matters, NRO? Because it sure sounds a lot like what comes out of the Orgasming for Obama campaign, and the office of the Attorney General of the United States. What’s next, those who appreciate the sheriff’s many years of public service at the federal and local levels are raaaaaacist?
Now as to your last sentence. Exactly who is it that cannot distinguish between the birthers’ flim-flam and the ‘critical questions that face our nation in 2012’? And further, what special powers do you have to see into their minds or psyches as to whether they can or cannot compartmentalize various and sundry issues?
Your haste to calumnize Sherriff Joe causes you to shoot off the mouth from the hip, NRO, and to make nonsensical generalizations. But let’s stay focused on Joe for a moment as you envision him settling into a mental ward. First, is it or is it not a fact that not only has the State of Arizona been sued by the Department of Justice, but also local law enforcement, specifically Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office, is being quite publicly investigated by Eric Holder’s henchmen? Have you ever been the subject of a bogus investigation meant to destroy you? Go on about Sheriff Joe, NRO; he is obviously THE menace to society, isn’t he?
Secondly, as you sit in your East Coast ivory towers and pontificate, in all your blathering today in which you failed to mention the harassment of Sheriff Joe, how many Fast and Furious guns are still out there floating around Maricopa and surrounding border counties and what kind of insane minds put them there and just how effective have you East Coast pundits been at getting to the root of that problem? And you’re worried about a little dog-and-pony show Arpaio is putting on out there? Talk about ‘critical questions that face our nation’. By the way, do you know anything about psychological warfare? Never mind. But we suspect Brian Terry’s mother would be in favor of Maricopa County sending a posse to Washington, DC with a rope if that’s what it took. Sheriff Joe is just a birther nut, isn’t he?
Now, as to the whole birther question and nut cases and you dignified “sane” people in elite media and academia versus the rabble, just one quick question and then we’ll move on – If the document in question was so prominent, valid, and readily available as you say, why did the Governor of Hawaii spend a good part of his time and energy while in office trying to find it, indeed almost having a nervous breakdown when first vowing to produce it and then being frustrated and remorseful at not being able to? That’s enough.
Another question: Did you or did you not, NRO, pimp the works of Stanley Kurtz and Dinesh D’Souza? Hmmmm?
To recap for our readers, Stanley Kurtz called Obama a socialist. A socialist! Can you imagine anything more radical, off-the-wall and insane as calling the President of the United States a socialist?. What was Kurtz smoking when he wrote that? There are, to quote you, “critical questions facing our nation” and you want to associate yourselves with someone who engages in that buffoonery? Calling the President insulting names ranks right up there with questioning his legal standing to serve in the office, would you not say? And if that wasn’t bad enough, you have D’Souza, pretending to be a psychologist or psychiatrist and coming up with some cockamamie theory about Obama being obsessed by the ghost of his father and the ghost of British colonialism. How whacked out can you get? But D’Souza’s your guy – got all that Ivy League cred and publishing house backing, so let’s float some theories around Buckley’s old barn, huh? For the record, NRO, the Kurtz and D’Souza proposals are probably spot on, but that’s not the point here.
Here’s the bottom line, dear and sainted NRO. In your zeal to portray Arpaio as cuckoo and to disabuse the voting public of in any way entertaining thoughts of supporting or voting for people who have engaged in any endeavor or discussion or political initiative with Arpaio, and to say they are by association distracted from the real and critical issues, we assume you are vetting those people for us. Our question to you is, if you had used your influence to force your bretheren and sisteren in the Ivory Towers adjacent to yours to vet the candidate Barack Hussein Obama, or failing that, if you had done it yourself, would not this whole question of Joe Arpaio and the birthers today be moot?