At a time when most of America was looking for answers in the Tucson shootings, trying to understand what mix of privation and perversion could drive an individual to shoot indiscriminately into a crowd of innocent bystanders, longtime Pima County sheriff Clarence Dupnik had his answers prepackaged and ready for prime time.
It was the right-wing rhetoric, Dupnik told the crowds at his press conferences — along with Fox News, MSNBC, and anybody else who would listen. It was the violent rhetoric of tea partiers, talk-show hosts, and Sarah Palin who had turned Arizona into a “mecca for racism and bigotry,” and the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others was but “the fruit of” their irresponsible statements.
Advertisement
And as if there were any doubt about whether the sheriff’s pronouncements represented the measured judgment of a criminal investigator or the shameless opportunism of a political hack, he told Fox’s Megyn Kelly that not only was the Right complicit in the crimes of Jared Lee Loughner, but — and perhaps even worse — it was standing athwart the hope-and-change express. “I grew up in a country that was totally different than the country we have today,” he said. “We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country.”
When National Review Online asked Pima County GOP chairman Brian Miller whether there was any doubt in his mind that Dupnik, a vocal liberal in a state with comparably few, had used his office to score political points in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, an almost incredulous Miller responded: “No doubt at all. It’s inarguable. It’s been videotaped.”
And now, Pima County Republicans are more determined than ever to do something about it. They’ve launched dumpsheriffdupnik.com, the virtual locus of a money-bomb that hopes to raise $100,000 to oust the 30-year, seven-term incumbent.
While the election isn’t until 2012 and the $100,000 figure is being called just “an initial goal,” Miller says his party is intent on keeping its foot on the gas and doing all it can to retire Dupnik.
Miller calls Dupnik’s public appearances in the wake of the Tucson shootings merely “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
“We just want to be able to hold him accountable for what he’s done professionally — or more accurately, unprofessionally,” he says.
“He has continuously come out, very unprofessionally, as the chief law-enforcement officer in the county,” Miller elaborates, adding that in the Loughner case Dupnik has “corrupted the investigation” and “potentially made the prosecution’s case more difficult” with his speculations.
"When National Review Online asked Pima County GOP chairman Brian Miller whether there was any doubt in his mind that Dupnik, a vocal liberal in a state with comparably few, had used his office to score political points in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, an almost incredulous Miller responded: 'No doubt at all. It’s inarguable. It’s been videotaped.'"
What a joke. What does this sheriff need to score "political points" for? The guy is 76 years old. Who says he's running again? Who says he cares if he loses?
How about maybe this was an old geezer speaking his mind? Why can't you deal with that?
Then the sheriff is simply a senile liberal speaking? I think MikeB is wrong, senile are the young ones who were carried away by talking as if they were the old sheriff.
Even if Dupnik was simply speaking his mind, with no political intentions, because he made a high profile, and open-shut, case more difficult to prosecute he should be gone for that reason alone.
@MikeB I think it was an old geezer speaking his mind and it was very damaging and wrong. I don't care whether he cares about winning or not but for the good of their county the people there need to make sure he does lose, retires or is recalled. He is obviously a bad man to hold the position he does.
@MikeB, he had no business "speaking his mind." He's the county's chief law enforcement officer, not some guy seated at the end of the bar tossing out bon mots for everyone within earshot to hear. He's supposed to deal in facts. And one fact he's provided is that, thanks to his bloviating, the lunatic's defense team can use everything he said to muddy the waters when the case goes to trial.
Dupnik of all people should have known about the run-ins Loughner had with the law in the weeks and months prior to the shooting. Moreover, Dupnik should have made provisions to protect the Congresswoman, but didn't. My take on what he was doing when, the day after the shooting, he spouted the mindless nonsense he did was to try and cover up his own incompetence. He thought he could do so by casting a blood libel on the Right. Thanks to the Internet, he failed. Yes MikeB, he is an old geezer, but he is an incompetent old geezer with a meta-narrative, and don't confuse him with the facts. Let's hope the Republican can unseat him.
For anyone who says Dupnik was going outside the ambit of his responsibilities, fine. Fair comment. But for those who say his comments were "prepackaged" or represent "shameless opportunism" -- that could very well be more Daniel Foster trying to "score political points" with his editors than Dupnik trying to do the same with the electorate, wouldn't it?
What makes conservatives resort time after time to impugning the good faith of their opponents? Are your substantive arguments so weak that you have to assume that liberals are all out to bring Amerikkka to its knees? (Scary to think, but my guess is that your snap answer is "Yes!")
Dupnik is Dupnik, he should have stuck to the facts, not his conjecture and opinion, but on a bigger point why is the knee jerk reaction to find some systemic problem and propose massive fixes?
how about if we don't do anything? the gunman is a nut, he should be tried according to the law, and we should move on.
just because someone has an auto accident doesn't mean we should ban cars.
"How about maybe this was an old geezer speaking his mind? Why can't you deal with that?"
If so, this is prima facie evidence that we shouldn't have "old geezer's" in office. If they can't bring themselves to care enough to behave responsibly, why should we bring ourselves to pay them to do so?
Dupnik has been a disgrace in this County for a lot longer than the last two weeks. His accusation that Giffords' political opponents and talk show hosts were accessories to murder was simply outrageous. Giffords opponent in the last election -- jesse kelly -- ran an honorable and above-board campaign. There was no unusual "vitriol" in that campaign -- he lied about that. Whether he's a geezer or not, he is not a geezer we want as the County sheriff.
MikeB "What makes conservatives resort time after time to impugning the good faith of their opponents?"
You mean like accusing Republicans of inciting violence in the Tucson killer? You mean like saying that opponents of Obama are not good people ala Sheriff Dubnik?
Bandmom: Are you saying that, because the Left has accused the Right of creating a poisonous atmosphere in which nutbags may feel more inclined to do terrible things, or that the Left accurses the Right of not being "good people," Daniel Foster's assertion that Dupnik was trying to "score political points" is true? What does saying what Dupnik said get him? Why do you think Foster used the word "prepackaged"? What's the opposite of "prepackaged," and just how do you think Dupnik went about prepackaging his words?
There should be much more focus from the national GOP on this issue.
On January 8th, there were TWO crimes committed in Tucson: the senseless murders at Gabby Gifford's event, and Sheriff Dupnik's cynical exploitation of his office to smear political opponents with charges he knew at the time to be untrue.
Loughner, with his numerous run-ins over his rambling threats, was known to the Sheriff's Department.
Further, if Tucson was such a "Mecca of racism and hate" as he claimed, why were no deputies assigned to Gifford's event? Surely in an atmosphere as charged with anger as he described, a responsible law-enforcement officer would have assigned a beefy security detail for an event in a wide-open environment. He didn't because there wasn't any such atmosphere. Until his own hateful words created it.
No, MikeB, bandmom is saying your assertion that "conservatives resort time after time to impugning the good faith of their opponents" is hypocritical. In general, conservatives accuse liberals of being wrong, whereas liberals accuse conservatives of being evil. Pretty standard stuff. Where have you been?
They can bang this gong until election day. He should be hung around the liberal's neck like an albatross and used to vilify their hateful rhetoric at every opportunity.
@MikeB
Seriously, why on earth should we have to "deal with it"? That "old geezer", as you refer to him, is elected to SERVE THE PEOPLE. Spouting off ignorant nonsense without a single fact to back it up is not serving the people. Neither is Dupnik serving the people when he tries to engage in a police coverup of his own bungling incompetence. He either knew about the deranged shooter's numerous run-ins with the law and did the usual liberal "solution" -- a big fat nothing -- or he truly didn't know about this nutcase living in his district, in which case, just what is he drawing a salary at taxpayer expense for?
By the way, if Arizona is truly seething with "racism" and "bigotry", how come the shooter was white, and all the murder victims were also white?
MikeB: "What makes conservatives resort time after time to impugning the good faith of their opponents?"
Here's a fact, Mike: In one five-hour stretch less than 48 hours after the shooting, MSNBC's coverage of it mentioned the name "Sarah Palin" 166 times, while the name "Jared Loughner" was mentioned 18 times.
As for your remark regarding "Amerikkka," the most famous reference to that idiosyncratic spelling leads directly to Barack Obama's spiritual guide for a couple of decades. And you ask why conservatives question the good faith of their opponents? Then, you try to undercut the obvious retort.
Here is the truth. There are two kinds of leftists in America: those who have no good faith regarding America properly defined, and those who fail to grasp the logical outcomes of their own twisted premises. I've read your posts, and you appear to be sufficiently stupid to be let off the hook on the bad faith charge.
My suggestion - RECALL the outspoken sheriff and have the governor appoint Jesse Kelly to the position. Then when the next election comes up, Sheriff Kelly can be judged on his performance!
If I remember correctly, Mr. Kelly has an outstanding personal history along with a sound military background - all of which should benefit the people of this county!
The local district attorney would be remiss if they don't investigate this man for fouling this case. He most certainly is guilty as I charge - and the charge can be validated by numerous recorded television appearances!
If the people of this county want any respectability in the future, this man must be removed IMMEDIATELY if not sooner!!!!!
"I don't remember any conservatives complaining about this kind of thing when those of us who had the good sense to oppose the Iraq war in advance were being subjected to the exact same sort of attacks on our motives, character, and patriotism. Remember, for instance, Bush's complaint when Senate Democrats balked at allowing him to strip Homeland Security workers of their right to join public unions: "The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people"? HP
Follow
