Thomas and Patterson relish roles as victims

Tuesday was quite the day for victims around this place.

RESPONSE: Patterson tells ethics panel he wants to question witnesses and put up a defense. B3

First, there was former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, reprising the role of Delusional Crusader against Corruption, Doomed to be Squashed by the Shadowy Powers That Be.

"The political witch hunt that's just ended ? (sends) a chilling message to prosecutors," Thomas proclaimed, as news of his disbarment exploded. "Those who take on the powerful will lose their livelihood."

Especially, I would add, when those who take on the powerful don't seem to go in search of actual evidence before filing RICO suits and criminal charges and such.

Then there's my favorite victim of the moment, Rep. Daniel "Who me?" Patterson, the perpetually picked-upon Democrat turned independent, who on Tuesday offered an answer for every allegation, every charge, every accusation lobbed at him by his ex-wife, by his ex-girlfriend, by police, by prosecutors, by his colleagues.

Short version: They're all lying and the investigators who are calling for his expulsion are biased.

"The whole process is unfair and has turned into a witch hunt," he wrote in Tuesday's Arizona Republic.

There are, of course, differences between our two victims in the scope, the breadth and the sheer magnitude of their transgressions. But the starkest difference is this: Thomas got his day in court, so to speak, before a disciplinary panel yanked away his profession.

Patterson, it seems, will not, unless the House ethics chairman, Ted Vogt, R-Tucson, has a change of heart.

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, on Tuesday reversed course and said he now believes that Patterson should get a hearing.

"You're right," he told me. "Let's have some very pointed questions from the Ethics Committee and get a response."

Patterson's troubles tumbled into view in late February when he got into a fight with his girlfriend. Unfortunately for him, the fight was witnessed by a city of Tucson parks employee, who told police that Patterson "backhanded" the woman, knocking her to the ground.

House Democrats immediately swung into action, something you get the feeling they'd been itching to do since 2010 when allegations first surfaced that he'd beaten up his then-wife. The resulting ethics complaint was signed by nearly every Democrat in the joint.

Investigators, assigned to check out the complaint, painted a picture of a bully feared by colleagues and ex-wives/girlfriends alike, though his ex-girlfriend has since recanted. They found "substantial and significant evidence of Rep. Patterson's dishonest, inappropriate, unprofessional, indecorous conduct" and recommended that he be bounced, posthaste.

Alas, if you expect Patterson to go gentle into that good night, you're dreaming. In Pattersonland, he is perhaps the only innocent around. And so we have his bizarre 30-page response delivered on Tuesday, along with 600 assorted pages of backup material that appears irrelevant.

The ethics complaint, he says, is bogus. If he did scream at his colleagues, as a fair number of them say, he's apologized and so double jeopardy would apply if they now tried to remove him. Besides, he now has a "cordial relationship" with these people.

Even, presumably, with the ones who are carrying guns because they're afraid of him.

Though he did write a letter to his alma mater Michigan State on legislative letterhead, requesting signed basketball memorabilia, he says, "I never intended to use my position to get anything inappropriate."

At one point in his response, he blames his predicament on "racial discrimination" by Democratic Party leaders. At another, he lauds the notion of "Baja Arizona" seceding from state because Republicans are "plundering" the place.

And if people really do feel threatened by him? Well, there's someone to blame for that (and here's a hint, it's not him).

"If people are frightened of Rep. Patterson physically then perhaps we should see what the written policy and procedures are for handling such occasion, the training personnel receive on sexual harassment, discrimination and duty to ensure a safe work place," he wrote. "If the allegations in the investigative report are true, then the state of Arizona has failed miserably in its legal obligations to follow written procedures."

So, to recap. Nothing is Patterson's fault. He is a victim extraordinaire -- of his exes, of his colleagues, of both political parties, the police, prosecutors and -- wait for it -- the state of Arizona, which apparently didn't give him proper training on sexual harassment.

The man sounds desperate and vaguely unhinged. But he's also right, at least on one thing.

Like Thomas, he deserves a fair hearing, even if it's only the chance to stand before theEthics Committee, one eyeball-to-eyeball opportunity to plead his case before his fate is sealed.

Nobody likes a bully, after all. And the worst sort of bully is a mob.

Reach Roberts at laurie.roberts@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8635.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here