About half the time I’ve encountered Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in recent months, he’s growled something along the lines of, “You’re the guy who used to write those columns attacking me, aren’t you?”

Yes, in fact, I am.

Back in 2003 through 2005, before I went on the political beat for the 2006 elections, I served as a metro columnist for the Tribune. Among the topics I wrote about was a Sheriff’s Office heroin ring bust that involved Scottsdale Unified School District students, and the school board’s subsequent decision to launch a drug-sniffing dog program at the high schools.

I criticized both developments. I wrote the drug bust was over-hyped and that the drug-sniffing dog program violated students’ civil liberties.

For example, in a column that ran on May 13, 2005, I noted that the so-called heroin ring bust turned up exactly three kids who were thought to have used heroin while they were students in Scottsdale’s five high school. Most of the “investigative leads” were pretty flimsy to start with, and most of the others involved marijuana, rather than heroin anyway. I wrote…

That’s not exactly an epidemic considering Scottsdale’s five high schools have a total of 8,300 students. To be precise, Arpaio’s high-profile investigation exposed 0.04 percent of the student body as heroin users – if Arpaio’s numbers are to be believed at all.

In contrast, 1.7 percent of 12^th-graders nationwide are thought to have used heroin at least once in their lives, according to a 2002 study by the president’s Office of national Drug Control Policy. By those measures, Scottsdale schools are remarkably heroin free.

In the same column, I criticized the school board for its 4-1 decision to send drug-sniffing dogs to patrol the schools. I wrote that no clearing-thinking person could have come to such a decision, which indicated to me that the board members themselves must have been on something. I wrote…

Board member Molly Holzer said, “I’m excited to try this because it does send a strong message.”

Oh, it sends a strong message all right. It sends a message that we should forget about putting drug-sniffing dogs in schools. We should put them where they’re needed. We should put them in the board room.

In the same column, I wrote…

Board member Eric Meyer cast the loan dissenting vote, because he didn’t see the measure as a deterrent. He grasped the idea that drug users can stash their dope in their cars rather than in their school lockers, making dog patrols useless.

Now here’s the back story. Every time I wrote one of those columns, one of Arpaio’s people called the Tribune’s top editors the first thing in the mornings to complain that I was attacking the sheriff. It got to the point that Tribune managing editor Chris Coppola asked me, as a curtsey, to e-mail him a copy of all Arpaio-related columns the day before they ran, so that he would have a chance to read them before his phone started ringing.

Now, flash forward to my recent encounters with Arpaio. As I mentioned, when we’ve spoken either by phone or in person, he’s frequently brought up those columns, but not in an angry way.

In fact, just the opposite. It’s been more like he was reminiscing the good ol’ days. Clearly, the topic had been on his mind lately. I couldn’t figure why, but didn’t give it much thought, either.

Then earlier this week, an advance copy of his new book arrived in my in-box. The book, which was co-written by Scottsdale resident Len Sherman, is titled, “Joe’s Law: America’s Toughest Sheriff Takes on Illegal Immigration, Drugs, and Everything Else That Threatens America.”

Imagine my surprise when I got to Page 77 and came across a passage in which Arpaio discussed the school board’s decision to send in the dogs.

That didn’t make any sense to me. Dogs might be fine for sniffing out lockers, but how long would it take any students holding narcotics to figure out how to get around the dogs, to keep them out of their lockers and, for example, store them (in) their cars in the parking lot? In a fairly unusual event, the media expressed disdain that mirrored my own about the school board’s idea. The plan was destined to fall apart of its own ill-conceived weight.

Wow. Who knew? 

Last week I reported on this blog that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who had campaigned for formal presidential candidate Mitt Romney of Massachusetts rather than the home-state candidate John McCain, was prepared to endorse McCain.

While Arpaio differed with McCain on some issues, particularly immigration reform, they agreed on enough that the sheriff was comfortable with the U.S. senator, Arpaio said.

Arpaio told me that he was just waiting for McCain or one his people to ask for his endorsement.

On Monday during an airport press briefing, McCain said he was unaware Arpaio was now a Friend of Mac.

When asked if he would invite Arpaio to campaign for him, McCain responded, “I don’t know what the terms and conditions are, or what he had to say, so I’ll have to examine it.”Apraio previously told me that he would endorse McCain, provided McCain allowed him to do some campaigning on his behalf. Arpaio said he wasn’t as interested in just lending his name to McCain’s campaign material.

Mitt Romney (left) and Joe Arpaio

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who previously endorsed former GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney for the president, said he now backs fellow Arizonan John McCain.

“My point is he’s the nominee. I’m going to support him,” Arpaio told me.

Arpaio didn’t merely endorse the former governor of Massachusetts, he traveled around the country during the early primary season speaking in support of Romney and Romney’s feelings concerning illegal immigration. Romney never really did offer a clearly defined illegal immigration policy. Instead, he spoke about aspects of other candidates’ policies that didn’t suit him. It’s a moot point now though.

Arpaio said he would give McCain his official endorsement if McCain or his people asked, but to date, they haven’t asked. The only condition to formally endorsing McCain, Arpaio said, is that he be allowed to actively campaign for the presidential candidate. Arpaio said he wants to be more actively involved than just simply lending his name to campaign literature.

When asked I asked the sheriff about the differences between his own and McCain’s stances on immigration, Arpaio shrugged and noted that he and the Arizona senator agreed on enough other issues that he feels comfortable supporting McCain.

Mitt Romney and Joe Arpaio

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio traveled to New Hampshire to stump for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney during the weekend.

Arpaio, who has made national headlines for arresting illegal immigrants, appeared with U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado, at a press conference in Manchester to discuss illegal immigration.

Here’s some of Arpaio’s quotage, as provided by Romney’s campaign:

“I like (Romney’) stance on illegal immigration. If you recall, he’s probably the first governor that did make arrangements with (the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement service) for that type of training that ICE and we do. I give him a lot of credit for that.”

“It is an important problem in the state of Arizona and the whole country. That’s one reason I support the governor, versus many other reasons, too. Unfortunately, we have a U.S. senator from that important state that doesn’t give much emphasis to this most important issue.”

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed an agreement with ICE that allowed Massachusetts state troopers training and authority to enforce immigration law.

I’m not sure exactly what Arpaio meant by suggesting that Sen. John McCain doesn’t give much emphasis to illegal immigration. McCain co-sponsored the last two immigration reform packages that got any traction at all. Of course, both failed. And, in fact, it has been McCain’s unflinching attention to immigration policy that his given his campaign the most difficulty within his own party.

Curiously, Romney’s current immigration plan has more similarities than dissimilarities to the Senate’s compromise plan that McCain pushed in the summer. Here’s Romney’s 11-point plan, as outlined in the same press release:

– Secure the border. (Part of the 2007 Senate plan.)

– Implement a mandatory and enforceable employment verification system. (Part of the Senate plan.)

– Hold employers accountable. (Part of the Senate plan.)

– Reject amnesty. According to Romney, that means “oppose … any special path to citizenship for those here illegally.” (That might be a difference, but maybe not. The Senate plan contained a “path to citizenship” that included illegal immigrants paying fines, paying back taxes, proving steady employment, undergoing a background check and learning English, among other requirements. McCain, and others, said that was not amnesty. It’s difficult to determine how different Romney’s intended treatment of illegal immigrants differs from McCain’s proposed treatment, because Romney didn’t offer any details about what he would do with an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already living in the United States.)

– End the magnet of “sanctuary cities.” (The Senate plan was silent on this.)

– Oppose any special benefits for illegal immigrants. Romney defines this as driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. (The Senate plan was silent on this.)

– Promote state and local partnerships with federal immigration officials. (Part of the Senate plan.)

– Improve interior enforcement. (Part of the Senate plan.)

– Teach English in our schools. (The Senate plan was silent on this.)

– End chain migration. (Part of the Senate plan.)

– Encourage legal immigration. (Part of the Senate plan.)

So in summery, of Romney’s 11 points, seven were featured in the Senate immigration bill, three weren’t addressed one way or the other, and the final point is tough to determine without more details from Romney.

It’s important to note that since the Senate immigration bill failed during the summer, McCain has said he now favors an enforcement-first approach.

Also, national Republican and Democrat decision makers alike have told me that immigration very likely will be a dead issue until after the next president is sworn in, and perhaps even until the next president is sworn in for a second term.

Imagine the surprise when Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio appeared on