Deconstructing Phil Boas

You may recall that earlier this month Arizona Republic editorial page editor Phil Boas took a cheap shot at various citizens working to fill the gap left by Boas (on the editorial page) and otherwise inadequate coverage of the corruption at the Corporation Commission, including Trash Burner Bob Stump and Susan Bitter Smith.

One such citizen is attorney and activist Tom Ryan. He had filed what appears to be an airtight complaint demonstrating Bitter Smith has violated statutory conflict of interest law from the time she first began campaigning for election to her current position.

Chris Herstam poignantly called out Boas for naivete. I suggested Herstam gave Boas the benefit of the doubt.

Ryan, however, answered Boas' criticism point by point, in detail. That was after Ryan had sent an email message to Boas offering to answer ANY question the editorial board might have about Ryan's quo warranto complaint.

One has to wonder how and why the Republic continues to allow an editorial page editor to remain in its employ when that editor has a prima facie conflict of interest by virtue (despite claims of being walled off from Arpaio coverage) of his familial relationship with Maricopa County's most infamous elected official. Boas is son-in-law to the nativist sheriff. So wondering, that is, before even considering the overt statement Boas had made declaring his bias against calling out government corruption.

In today's Arizona Republic, Boas finally responds to Ryan's letter, without even beginning to address the primary festering issue -- the Republic's lack of willingness to expose and fully discuss the ramifications of Bitter Smith's, Stump's and Stump's "partners-in-crime" as it were, Doug Little and Tom Forese.

So, here's what Boas had to say, 

All Boas had done was "defend a few of them in this space..." he says.
Really, Phil?

You didn't expose your "naivete" or your bias against holding elected government to account?

For Ryan to write a response to Boas' cheap shot then ensuring Boas saw that response constitutes a "thuggish tactic?" Hyperbolic much, Phil?

thuggish

thug

(thŭg)

n.
1. A cutthroat or ruffian; a hoodlum.
2. also Thug, One of a group of professional criminals, devotees of Kali, who robbed and murdered travelers in northern India until the mid-1800s.

My goodness, Phil. Your harsh criticism of legitimate exercise of citizenship has me shaking in my boots. NOT. But it does, in the parlance of attorneys, likely have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, through intimidating language, if not with threats of legal action.

What does Phil Boas' likening legitimate exercise of citizenship to criminal conduct really do to his credibility as editorial page editor?