I’ve never met Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz. But what I’ve observed about him publicly over the past two years is very troubling.

I understood his background, long before he ran for Congress. He was the high school government teacher turned city councilman turned mayor turned state senator, who seemingly never lost his gentle, grandfatherly demeanor.

What I didn’t understand, earlier this decade was how he could continue his claim of being “nonpartisan” while he was in the state Senate.

Municipal offices are often regarded as “nonpartisan,” yet Senate seats are not — and Mitchell was clearly identified as a Democrat at the Legislature.

Then, as Mitchell continued to insist he was “nonpartisan,” he helped his son, Mark Mitchell, get elected to the Tempe City Council — with the help of the Democratic Party machine. “How nonpartisan is that?” I wondered.

And when Harry Mitchell launched a campaign for the U.S. Congress in 2006, I wondered how much longer he could keep up with the “nonpartisan” claim. Sure enough, he continued to disavow partisanship, even though he had previously served as chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party.

And then there was his congressional campaign itself. It’s tough to look back and call it “nonpartisan.” Mitchell began with decrying the tendency of his opponent, incumbent Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., to pursue earmarks for his district.

From there, Mitchell began to make allegations about the “relationship” between Hayworth and now imprisoned former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In reality, Abramoff was a paid lobbyist for several American Indian tribes. And Hayworth represented a district that includes American Indian communities. Yet, Mitchell insinuated that there was a Hayworth-Abramoff connection that was scandalous and corrupt.

And then the “nonpartisan” Mitchell took Arizona political campaigning to a new low point, when he produced a television commercial displaying the image of Hayworth being viewed through a gun scope. The implied message was on the order of “let’s destroy J.D.” So much for Mitchell’s gentle, grandfatherly demeanor.

Today, Mitchell distributes press releases celebrating the earmarks that he secures for his congressional district. Apparently earmarks are now a good thing in the view of the “nonpartisan” congressman, although he’s not nearly as good at it as Hayworth was — the revenues that Mitchell has brought back to his district amount to pennies-on-the-dollar, compared to the funds secured by his predecessor.

And all this has left me wondering about several things.

First, I wonder if residents in congressional District 5 have considered all these contradictions, and just how partisan their congressman’s behavior really has been. And I wonder if, this year, Mitchell will once again display the image of his opponent being viewed through a gun scope.

I also wonder if Tempe residents realize that the son whom Mitchell worked so hard to get elected to the City Council is in no small part responsible for the city’s property tax increase. As property valuations were rising, Tempe Councilman Mark Mitchell refused to cut property tax rates. Tempe residents are now facing rising property tax bills, in the midst of our current economic downturn, thanks to the handiwork of the congressman’s son.

And I wonder if Mitchell’s constituents realize that, in the midst of our current energy crisis, he refuses to support the drilling of domestic oil. In lock step with his fellow congressional Democrats, the “nonpartisan” Mitchell has ignored the public’s preference for expanding domestic oil supplies, while offering no alternative means of expanding our oil resources.

I don’t know the answers to all my questions and ponderings. But I do know this: Harry Mitchell is anything but “nonpartisan.”