Clint and the Daily: Cozying it up in left field

Recently the liberal daily has developed an affinity for the libertarian Goldwater Institute (GI). More than an affinity, it actually is reminiscent of a romantic crush.  All that’s missing is a big fat smooch on Clint Bolick’s balding pate.

An odd pairing, to be sure — but this unlikely duo has an antagonist in common:  None other than Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

It makes little sense. Bolick is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.  Criticisms of the Office of the Maricopa County Sheriff are clearly outside the purview of Constitutional litigation. Where is the issue of Constitutional law and is there any litigation involved?    

Bolick claims the MCSO improperly clears criminal investigations leading to inaccuracies in crime statistics reported to the FBI.  He conveniently omits the fact that agencies set their own guidelines and the FBI “guidelines” are just that – not a requirement.

‘Tis a puzzlement.

The GI’s Scharf-Norton Center website says one of its “primary purposes is the goal of representing the indigent to enforce their constitutional rights to free speech, property and economic liberty.” But it also is quick to add, “our clients receive free legal representation thanks to the generosity of our donors.”

Could it be the generous donors and others have an axe which the GI is more than happy to grind?

Last December 3, the Goldwater Institute began its drubbing of Sheriff Arpaio. Seeing Red AZ covered the attack with The Goldwater Institute did not issue biased report in a vacuum.  We also wrote A tale of two mavericks on December 12, 2008.

It is worth reacquainting yourself with the posts — since this is clearly not the end of the GI’s involvement in the public flogging of the sheriff.


9 Responses to Clint and the Daily: Cozying it up in left field

  1. Stanford says:

    It seems Clint Bolick is taking his marching orders from the high dollar donors that support the Goldwater Institute. The business interests that want to ensure the constant flow of cheap illegal labor are the backbone of the contributors to GI. This makes perfect sense. It’s in vogue to have everything green these days, but the color of money is the greenest of all!!

  2. Hometown Guy says:

    Another report in the daily that would leave reasonable readers scratching their heads. But Arizonans are used to this nonsense. The Republic’s hatred of Arpaio runs so deep the newspaper is unable to report anything with his name in it and do so with integrity. The Goldwater Institute’s involvement would be baffling save for the golden money thread. I don’t discount that Jeff Flake, an amnesty fan, could have a finger or two deep in this pie. As the former Executive Director of the Goldwater institute, he is probably still inexorably connected.

  3. John Williams says:

    When Bolick first came to town he worked for The Institute for Justice and did exemplary work, as in the eminent domain case that threatened to close the EV family business known as Randy’s Brake Shop. He’s come a long way since then and turned into a shrill shill for the cheap labor profiteers who are the “generous” contributors to the Goldwater Institute.

    The old line that nothing good lasts forever applies here!

  4. Maggie says:

    I find it humorous that the Republic refers to the Goldwater Institute as a “think tank” in its headline when they are in cahoots denigrating Arpaio. Any other time the two entities would likely be at odds and there wouldn’t much in the way of “think”ing that the libertarian GI would agree with at the Republic.

    “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” rings true here.

  5. nightcrawler says:

    I don’t think it is realistic for conservatives to believe that the Goldwater Institute will march in lock step with the party platform. Libertarians as their name implies, focus on individual freedom, liberty and fight intrusive government actions on all fronts. Conservatives as of late are all to willing to give up precious freedoms in the name of national security. Immigration raids now, gun raids later. A slippery slope indeed.

  6. Night Owl says:

    What a bizarre leap from illegal immigration “raids” to gun “raids.” You obviously need some rest. Nightie Night.

  7. nightcrawler says:

    Let me explain…

    The issue is not the objective itself (stop illegal immigration), rather it is the methods used to accomplish the objective. No one who comments or reads this blog objects to office raids, broken tail light pull overs, checkpoints and stake outs because it doesn’t impact their freedom negatively and more importantly it works toward the objective..

    Now fast forward to a liberal administration and legislature that all of a sudden decides that all hand guns, semi-autos and ammunition must be registered and/or turned in. To accopmplish this objective, they employ the same tactics used to combat illegal immigration. Why not, no one objected before ? This time, see who cries foul..

    The point is that individual liberties must be preserved, even if it makes some objectives harder to attain.

  8. Lou D. Chris says:

    nightcrawler answered with my response before I could. Constitutional law has everything to do with limits on state power and what individual liberties are.

    On the other hand, GI has gone on some crazy goose-chasing lately, which does not bode well for their overall agenda.

  9. […] a Libertarian “think tank” that would ordinarily be the daily newspaper’s antithesis, to repeatedly slam the sheriff in grand […]