Unfit to Serve

Every time I meet Andy Thomas, I realize how much I like him.  I've met him for coffee, talked to him at events, run into him at various political and media functions and he's invariably polite, charming and soft spoken.  Moreover, he seems to have an excellent command of the issues and from my perspective, his world view has much in common with mine. 

Andy Thomas seem like a great guy...but there's absolutely no chance that I'm going to vote for him. 

I'm voting for Tom Horne in the primary and if Horne doesn't beat Thomas, I'll be voting for Lujan or Rotellini in the General. 

I find myself in a unique position.  There are plenty of people who I find charming and qualified who are not with me on the issues--I don't vote for them.  And there are plenty of people who are with me on the issues who are complete jerks--I usually hold my nose and vote for them. 

But this is the only time that I have found a nice guy who is bright, isn't overtly corrupt,  understands the issues and is generally with me but whose judgment is so bad that I would vote for any other candidate. 

It's taken me a long time to come to that conclusion and I've been trying to figure out the best way to express my concerns without simply reciting the catastrophic failures of Thomas as County Attorney.

I think this sign is a great metaphor for the disaster that is Andrew Peyton Thomas.  So let's start here.   

This is a race among attorneys to see who is going to be the state's top law enforcement officer.  So far all of the candidates have exhibited a basic level of professionalism---except Thomas. 

Don't get me wrong--I don't mind hit signs.  I've put up plenty, but there are some rules that you have to follow.  The first is that you have to know your race--and childish hit signs are simply unprofessional in the race for Attorney General.  This sign demonstrates a lack of professional judgment that I would expect from an Attorney General.

The second rule of hit signs is that they have to be true.  This one isn't.  Sure, Thomas will argue that Horne voted against a bill that would have limited federal funding of abortions---which is, of course, already illegal because of the Hyde amendment.   But does that actually mean that Horne supports taxpayer funded abortions?  Of course not.  Horne is probably pro choice, but he voted for parental consent and he voted against partial birth abortion.  (Here's a good article about the tit for tat.)

So the fundamental charge on the sign is simply not true.  And when you are a lawyer and you are running against another lawyer, for the job of top lawyer, and you make an accusation...it had better be true. 

Finally, if you are going to put up unprofessional hit signs with false charges, you should at least follow the laws that relate to political signs--like including the "Paid for by..." disclosure.  I took this picture at Shea and 120 th street. And it's obvious from the road that there's no disclosure on it.  Then when I got really close, I saw some print on the bottom left (I've put a blue circle around it in the picture.)  Inside my little blue circle is the sentence "Paid for by Thomas for A.G." 

Dude, that's worse than forgetting.  I can understand an error.  It's easy to forget the disclosure.  But this was intentional.  The rule is that the disclosure has to be "conspicuous."  That  means that it has to be comparable to the type on the rest of the sign.  You can't even read the Thomas disclosure in a photograph that I took from 3 feet.  I had to squat down to read it. 

Why does it matter?  Because it's illegal*, and it was intentional.  It's a sign of character. It's an indication that Thomas doesn't think the rules apply to him.  It's an indication that he thinks he's smarter than everyone else and that he can get away with not following the rules.  It's Bush League.

What's worse is that Thomas has been INDICTING people for violations like that.  Let's put Thomas's sign in front of a Grand Jury and see how he does.  Then let's indict him for every sign that he put up.  Maybe there's 50.  Or maybe there's 119.  That number should sound familiar.  That's the number of indictments that Thomas filed against Supervisor Don Stapley for fricking paperwork errors in his financial disclosure forms.

Or how about when Russ Jones turned in petitions and signed the back without witnessing the voters sign the front?  That's not cool and the remedy is to void that petition. But Thomas indicted him on six felony counts of forgery.  Dude, forgery is signing someone else's name. 

Don't get me started on the RICO charges against the judges.  That was astonishing.  The judge rules against Thomas and he charges them with being part of a large criminal conspiracy?  Seriously? 

I'll give Thomas a pass for arresting the New Times Publishers--after all, who hasn't wanted to arrest a newspaper publisher?  Besides, Thomas had turned that case over to a special prosecutor, so I don't think he knew what was going on.

But the other stuff...it was all Thomas.  And it was the same type of junk that you would expect from the guy who put up that sign--unprofessional, unsubstantiated, untrue and ultimately unsuccessful.

I didn't always feel this way.  I met with Thomas a couple years ago and he asked me to give him the benefit of the doubt.  He believed that he was uncovering real corruption and that he would eventually be proven right.  OK, I waited. 

Meanwhile, Thomas hand picked a fellow Republican prosecutor--Yavapai County prosecutor Sheila Polk--to look into his cases.  Here's what she concluded.

I am conservative and passionately believe in limited government, not the totalitarianism that is spreading before my eyes.

Totalitarian?  Wow that's a little harsh.  It's not like he's been indicting his political enemies, publicly humiliating them and forcing them to go through show trials that cost them millions of dollars and ruin their careers...oh, well, never mind.

Naturally, none of the trials came to anything.  All the charges against Jones, Stapley and Wilcox have been dismissed and the ridiculous "case"  against the judges has fallen apart.  Most of the victims have filed suits for malicious prosecution...and Thomas has said that as Attorney General he would consider using his authority to prosecute his previous victims if they receive compensation for his previous acts.  So the madness continues.

But I can do my little piece to stop the madness.

I'll be voting for Tom Horne. 

Footnote:  Perhaps I should say "potentially illegal".  Several of Thomas's people have contacted me to say that if a candidate committee pays for the sign, the disclosure isn't required.  (Barnett Lotstein also made that point in the comment section)

That's partially true.  After all, if Thomas puts up a sign that says "vote for Thomas" and it's paid for by the Committee to Elect Andy Thomas, then there's no reason to put the disclosure on the sign.  That's because it's pretty obvious what's going on.

However, Thomas' people seem to be claiming that merely having a Candidate Committee pay for a sign allows the candidate to anonymously hit another candidate.  That would be an interesting loophole.  So if say, Vernon Parker could use his campaign funds to print a sign saying that Ben Quayle is unfit to serve then Parker wouldn't have to disclose it.   That means that we would have no idea which candidate in the CD 3 race put up the signs against Quayle. 

If the candidate puts up a sign for himself and pays for it himself, it would be redundant for him to have to also add a disclosure.  However, if Thomas' people are trying to use the same exemption to anonymously hit other candidates then they are engaging in the same tactics that I decried in my post. 

So point proven...unfit to serve. 

Comments

[Jim Torgeson]

Remind me not to tick you off.

[PHX Conservative]

I would never vote for Thomas. Thank God we have a respectable candidate in Horne who is running against this bozo. Great article.

[20/30 GOP]

I haven't seen one of these signs, yet. But, it's not hard for me to believe that Thomas would do something like this after seeing how he ran the County Attorney's office. Tom Horne has my vote. He did a good job as Sup't of Schools.

[danzzing]

Excellent story! Thanks for sharing your perspective. For me, I often wondered how abortion balances to a prosecutor's work when they are required to enforce the death penalty. Death is death and who gets to play God!

[Irwin R. Fletcher]

Espresso Pundit:

1) How do you feel about the Sheriff sending out hit pieces against Romley for his 2012 election?
2) How do you feel about Andrew Thomas lite (AKA Bill Montgomery)?

[B.A.N.]

Excellent story and points. However, in this day and age, I think we need an ideological attorney general. Tom Horne looks and acts the part of a Superintendent of Public Instruction, but he doesn't exactly seem like the AG type of guy. Andrew Thomas does. He's driven, dedicated and best of all, approachable. He'll hold criminals accountable -- and keep an eye on elected officials, too. While both Thomas and Horne would be better than either of the Democrats, Thomas has my vote in the primary.

[AllUsBadGuys]

I spoke with Tom Horne myself at a Pachyderm meeting and he admitted that he would support abortion. He said he was pro-choice. We didn't discuss taxes, but keep in mind that if you are pro-choice in ANY way, then you are promoting taxpayer-funded abortion by consent. Planned Parenthood receives 1/3 of their funding from taxes.

I don't agree with Thomas making the "PAID FOR..." text inconspicuous, but Dude, he's not lying when he says Horne supports taxpayer-funded abortion.

[Ann]

So some guy who posts as "AllUsBadGuys" says he was told something in a private conversation and that is supposed to undo all the public bad acts of Thomas and go against Horne?

Greg made a very relevant, documented and legitimate case for his position based on public records and actions.

Hmmmm.....

[Thane EIchenauer]

"As Attorney General, I would be 100% committed to enforce any pro life bill that is or becomes law. As a legislator, I voted to restrict abortion, including voting to ban partial birth abortion and to require parental consent."

from http://www.ElectTomHorne.com/ home page

[azslim]

Dude, I am totally with you on this one Greg.

And to Irwin Fletcher, you are wrong about Bill Montgomery. He is not a "lite" version of anyone. He certainly has more integrity that any of these other candidates running for AG or County Attorney. And that's what should matter most of all, in light of recent developments.

[Aces]

Wow, I hate to agree, but I do. I am no Tom Horne fan, but Thomas is really crazy scary

[Steve Calabrese]

I normally don't cross-post, but I read this article after posting the below words on Sonoran Alliance. It seems Greg and I are thinking along the same lines.

As conservatives, we are supposed to be for LIMITED government.

We are supposed to be wary of police power being used to suppress dissent.

I fail to understand why a person would be charactized as a “RINO” for having problems with the way Andrew Thomas runs his office. It is possible to agree with the man 100% politically and yet also realize he is a horrible lawyer and quite possibly ethically bankrupt.

I am more in line with the stated beliefs of Andrew Thomas than I am with Tom Horne. Yet, I’m voting for Horne because I think he’s a better lawyer and more ethical than Thomas. I bet there are others who feel this way as well.

[Barnett Lotstein]

I think Mr. Patterson should take a law school refresher coarse. Arizona law does not require a disclaimer on a campaign sign if the sign is paid for by a candidate. Thomas obviousley paid for this sign so his name appearing on the sign was not necessarey no matter how small it was.A little legal research would have prevented Patterson's faulty ana ysis.
As to the content of the sign a little originaism and humor are not so bad.

[Carlist]

Hey Greg!

C'mon guy, you've been 'around the block' and are "playing the game"

By supporting J.D. you've ruffled some feathers within the G.O.P. establishment and the Chamber!

So you throw the McCains, Hamers and Bollicks a few bones!

A Tom Horne endorsement is one of them!

[Steve Calabrese]

Barnett Lotstein is correct. See ARS 16-912(c). 16-912 states that most signs in issue campaigns require a notice of who pays for them, but there is an exemption for campaign signs paid for by a candidate or with the candidate's campaign funds.

[Information]

Greg Patterson has potentially opened himself up to a libel lawsuit.

Patterson has made a very specific allegation: that Andrew Thomas "intentionally" engaged in "illegal" conduct involving the posting of signs with a disclaimer in small font. This allegation is reckless and made with a disregard for the truth. Patterson is an attorney and knows how to look up the relevant statue regarding campaign disclaimers.

The fact is, there is not a legal requirement for campaign signs paid for by a candidate or candidate committee to include a disclaimer of any kind, large font or otherwise. ARS 16-912 C says the legal requirements for "paid for by" disclaimers do not apply "...to signs paid for by a candidate with campaign monies or by a candidate's campaign committee..." Read the statute at: http://bit.ly/dtvDwA.

A plain reading of the statue shows the Thomas campaign's disclaimer size is lawful and fully complaint with all relevant laws. Patterson's allegation of "intentional" illegal conduct on the part of Thomas is thus shown to be completely untrue.

Patterson has been informed of the error of his statement and the actual requirements of the statue regarding disclaimers. Yet, Patterson has left his libelous statement of "intentional" illegal conduct on his website. Patterson has not corrected his post, merely added a footnote to his post calling the legal explanation by Thomas supporters "absurd."

Criticizing a candidate is one thing. Accusing him of intentional illegal conduct, when the author is aware no such illegal conduct has occurred, is another.

[jdleslie1]

Except Thomas, as a public official, would have to prove actual malice to win a libel suit here. An attorney and former legislator offering his opinion on the legality of a campaign sign is not going to rise even close to that standard.

[WhoHa]

Well Greg's predicted Thomas' loss, so here you have some intent to have his prediction come true.

I also assume the all-knowing Greg saw the City of Scottsdale-required contact-info sticker (is it on the back of the sign?) or he'd be complaining about that. And that the all-knowing Greg knows our democracy is based on coroplast and rebar.

I don't think Thomas has ever indicted anyone. Grand juries made up of ordinary people do that. Those ordinary people indict lots and lots of people. If the grand jury is doing what it's supposed to, lots and lots of ordinary people would oppose the prosecutor's agenda. Is anyone claiming that's happening?

You need to also avoid calling behavior you don't like "unprofessional." Street signs are already pretty unprofessional, aren't they? Even childish. You've seen Bolick's, and you'll remember Janet's. Ray Barnes? Read the statute, they're all legal, disclosure or not.

Please be honest and don't write "Tom Horne is probably pro-choice." Dude, word economy! Drop the "probably."

[china delay]

that is good writing and an interesting perspective. but i honestly don't know if i could vote for the dem for this job. you sure have me thinking. this is the best, most insightful and entertaining political blog out there - you should be on fox news. actually, it would be too much fun if you were on msnbc, but then you aren't elgible because you're not a registered communist. by the way, how the heck is pat buchanan part of that network? is he their showhourse so they don't lose their broadcast license?

[Jim Torgeson]

The reason to add the disclaimer is because it is a sign that is not advocating for a candidate paid for by the candidate.

It is a sign advocating against a candidate and, by it's nature, unclear as to who paid for it, so the conspicuous nature of the sign is non-existant.

It's a nuance, but it's supposed to keep the honest people honest.

[EastValleyPC]

Greg makes points that are arguable. I have to believe, after following Bill Montgomery for the last few years, that he will do the job of County Attorney that we thought Andy would have done. He is an honorable and intelligent man with a clear sense of what it is to be a conservative. Irwin is vastly uninformed. That being said, I can't vote for Tom Horne and I won't vote for a Democrat in the post of AG. We need someone who will fight the overreaching Obama Administration. That will be a good outlet for Thomas' energies.

[Brian]

I think Mr. Lotstein should take an English school refresher course! Your spelling is atrocious, sir! ;-)

[Molly]

Thank you Greg! This is a great post with valid points.

[Mark One]

Childish campaigning?

You don't think Jason Rose would have anything to do with this?

[Bill]

Here is what I do not understand. If it isn't illegal to not post your name on a campaign piece because you paid for it yourself, than why did Thomas go to the trouble to put his name on it all? Perhaps because he has an understanding as a lawyer of the true SPIRIT of the law. Perhaps he wants to have something to fall back on in a future law suit or criminal investigation?
Tom Horne gets my vote in the primary and general if he makes it, if not I may have to vote Dem.
PS Thomas supports taxpayer bailouts of his bone head criminal investigations that are going to cost us millions in litigation and damages.

[Steve Bentencourt]

I love this Uncle Rico picture!

[todd]

I have seen several instances lately, on this blog and elsewhere, of people claiming someone is committing libel simply by stating their opinion. What's up with that?

[Another Bill]

todd, I would guess it's same people who think it's a crime to sweep your office for listening devices if you think there might be someone trying to eavesdrop on you. In other words, anything that gets in the way of the Arpaio-Thomas regime is criminalized, even free speech.

[Rex]

Someone should call Jaime Molera and ask him his opinion about Horne's "integrity" when it comes to characterizing his opponents. He and Thomas deserve each other and it is no surprise that they are running the slimiest race Arizona has seen since Kaites and McGovern slugged it out for the same nomination back in the 90's. Thank goodness all three of the Democrats are better choices for this important office than either of these ethically-challenged, self-serving, ideologically-motivated men.

[duh]

Thank you, "Information," for proving Greg's thesis once and for all: Thomas, and apparently his supporters, think the Government's totalitarian role is thought police. Every small political disagreement is to be instantly punished with the full force of the LAW!

"I AM THE LAW" was funny when Sly Stallone said it in "Judge Dredd." It's not so funny when the County Attorney (who want to be AG) believes it.

[sunset trail]

Greg appreciate going out the limb like this. How about doing the same review of your best man Schweikert?

The disclosure on his hit piece on Ward is anything but conspicuous. He still has ads on his website from 2008, but not shown as 2008. Those ads include endorsements from groups that have not endorsed him in 2010....

[jack london]

Here it is: Does anyone think that the jerks thomas went after didn't deserve it??

Maricopa county open borders activist commisioners??

Who would think that was a bad idea?

Vote for Andy!

[Mandolyn]

I heard Horne speak recently.. He has my vote.. He will uphold the law. It isn't about being pro-life or pro-chice, it is about upholding the law. That is what I want my county attorney to do.

[Sal Paradise]

Hello, Mandolyn...

Tom Horne is running for Attorney General. You should probably know what office the candidate is running for before you decide whether or not to vote for the candidate.

[jones]

a 15-minute horne speech is like a two-hour root canal. or nap. just voted for thomas.

[jack london]

Me too.
Thanks early ballot!

[Eevie]

Andrew Thomas cannot be trusted. We cannot afford an out-of-control, unethical prosecutor in the Attorney General’s Office because it will break Arizona’s coffer and will not attract job growth.
Snakes attracts snakes; Andrew Thomas perverts the truth because there’s no truth found in him.

There’s one cure for a Histrionic, Pathological Liar. Tom Horne.

FACT: Shady Andrew Thomas received a letter from National GOP Committeeman, Mike Hellen, in 2002 telling Shady Andy if he didn’t stop misconstruing the truth …. and lying against the people he campaigns against … that the GOP would have nothing to do with him due to his l-a-c-k of character.

If it looks like a rat, and smells like a rat, it is a R-A-T!

FACT – Tom Horne has never been for amnesty
FACT – Tom Horne has never been for abortion on demand
FACT – Tom Horne is for parental School Choice
FACT – Tom Horne is for tuition tax credits
FACT – Arizona is above the national average on nationally normed tests (Terra Nova, ACT, and SAT)
FACT – Tom Horne can partake in the Securities Exchange, as a private citizen, buying and selling stocks and bonds

Tom’s outstanding integrity and successful courtroom skills have rendered him an “AV Lawyer” amongst his fellow lawyers and judges. This is an A+ rating for skills and ethics.

Shady Thomas holds a "B" rating.

Arizona Deserves the Truth.

Andrew Thomas delineates the Black Community and the Homeless in his tell-all books.

In his 1996 book entitled,
“The Rise of the Homeless,” he delineates homeless people as next to non-entities non deserving of unalienable rights.

Humanitarian anyone?

In his book entitled, “Crime and the Sacking of America” he repeatedly alludes to the fact that our country must conduct an innate, genetic study to discover why there’s such a high rate of crime amongst the Black Community.

Good Samaritan anyone?

Mr. Thomas hides behind playing a “Pro-Life” advocate with one side of his mouth, but bashes and degrades the homeless and Black Community with the other.

Andy, my man, the A.G.'s office doesn't vote on abortion issues.

“Double-minded men never prosper … being tossed to-and-fro with every wave of the sea.”

Reporting the Truth Because Arizona Deserves the Truth!

Tom Horne is endorsed by the Arizona Republic and the Department of Public Safety ... Statewide!

Fight Truth Decay.
Elect Tom Horne for Arizona's next Attorney General!

[Dallas]

"In this day and age I think we need an ideological AG"???

Oh wow. How about this? In this day and age, we need a person who actually wants to do the right thing for our state. In this day and age, we need someone who won't use their office to attempt to ruin others for sport.

That quote is the equivalent of saying "What is the most effective method of accentuating the problem?" Elect an ideologue!

Greg, you are brave. Let's hope Horne pulls it out...