Wed 19 Dec 2007
It looks like there will be a contested race for the Republican primary for the LD-26 House. The three announced candidates are Trent Humphries, Vic Williams, and Marilyn Zerull.
Trent owns a local computer business and has a young family. His campaign seems to be the most organized. His campaign manager is the well-connected and experienced Kevin Herring. Media contact for the campaign is Mike Cole (248-1258) who works for a local radio station. The campaign also has a long time Republican activist as the volunteer coordinator and another person as the marketing expert. Look for Trent to run a very competitive campaign that will appeal to Independents as well as the traditional Republicans. We do not yet have a web site for Trent but have been informed that one will be coming.
The next candidate is Vic Williams. Vic has been very active with the party and currently serves as the treasurer for the county committee as well as first vice-chair for LD-26. It was speculated that Vic would relinquish his position(s) within the party to focus on his race but it now looks like he will retain his party titles. Early indications are that Vic will run a more centrist campaign than the other two candidates. Again, no web site that we know of at this time.
Marilyn Zerull is the final candidate on the Republican side. Marilyn has been active within the party as a precinct committeewoman and as a state delegate. She lives in the northern part of the district where Republicans have a distinct advantage in registration. Marilyn is running as a Reagan Republican and has also assembled a solid campaign staff for her race. Marilyn has an early version of her web site at http://www.marilynzerull.com/.
The LD-26 senate primary is shaping up to be a classic showdown between the conservative and liberal wings of the party with Al Melvin vs. Pete Hershberger. It looks like Hershberger will be going with traditional fundraising. Because of clean elections the more money he raises the better-funded Melvin’s campaign will be. We do not see how Pete closes the gap by which Al won in the last primary against a less liberal opponent than Pete.
The Democrats appear to be running two candidates for the house race. Don Jorgensen has already filed and we expect Lena Saradnik to run again. Despite her lack-luster first term in office look for Charlene Pesquiera to run again for the senate.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
How can a candidate keep seats on the Board and in a legilative district where he is running ? How fair is that ? My wife says i should shut up cause he is better looking than most of the Republicans that come to the LD 26 meetings
December 19th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Mike Jenkins ran for Congress in CD 8 and kept his seat as District Chair in 2006 & the field was much larger.
Vic has put in a lot of time & effort for not only the Republican Party but for other community efforts.
The other candidates had the opportunity to serve & I know Marilyn did put her name in the ring for D 26 leadership. I don’t think Trent did.
If he has the time & energy to maintain both positions, then no problem. He’s volunteered on campaigns since I’ve known him (2005 Tucson Council GOTV Chair, etc…) & runs impartial meetings when David Smith asks him to.
Come to think of it, Vic ran unoppossed for those positions. He really stepped up when no one else would & he took on the responsibility to maintain D 26.
Disclaimer: I know all the candidates and will support their efforts. The goal is to unite & make sure that Republicans control D 26 in 2008. I know Pete, Al, Marilyn, Trent & Vic and they would all serve much better than the Dems. Let’s work together to make sure we recognize Reagan’s 11th Commandment & focus on the issues & winning back D 26.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
It’s a personal decision, but anyone who keeps a seat in their district while running for office in that district is only making themselves look bad. The person needs to decide if they really want to run. If he isn’t sure, then he should back out. If he is running for sure, he should drop the district job and make it clear he’s not using the position just to get himself in front of people. Playing both sides looks weak.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:46 am
This Williams guy always wants it both ways. I admire people who just want to serve without a personal agenda. He won’t resign cause without these titles he is just a carpetbagger from California with a massive ego who wants to be a big fish in a small pond.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Carpetbagger?
Al is from California
Trent is from Montana
Marilyn is from North Dakota
Vic is from California
Pete is from Arizona.
So you’re supporting Pete since he is the only native Arizonan?
I’m no native Arizonan either (WA, OR & CA), & with the massive influx of residents from other states, that argument may cause people to vote FOR him.
Vic has volunteered for years, for many candidates – I’m not aware of any “personal agenda”, but I’m sure he has personal issues that are important to him that he’d like to see improve.
Being 1st Vice Chair of the district won’t alter any votes. Those supporting the different candidates that attend the meetings know them and will make their decisions based on who they want.
Doesn’t make any sense attacking these folks. Let them all craft their messages and see which ones appeal to you.
Merry Christmas
December 20th, 2007 at 9:41 am
ThinkRight, Jenkins did stay as district chair. He also lost.
Pete was born in Denver. Doesn’t exactly qualify as a native.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:52 am
So, they’re all carpetbaggers! Darn it all.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Think Right has no clue who he is defending. I think he is just a Republican Cheerleader. Can’t fault him for that but he is way off the mark.
I agree about the carpetbagger issue not being a big deal but how does someone continue to hold a ledership post in a distict where he is running in contested Republican Primary in that very district ?
How fair is that ?
How does that person also sign checks as the treasurer of the Pima County Party when that same party may end up allocating resources to his district. Smells of Conflict of Interest to me…Why would anyone running expecting to gain the public trust even allow himself or his party held up to that kind of potenital conflict…real or perceived it is still a potential problem for the Party and the District. Just because some may think it could be done, the question is should it be done ?
Think right is wrong.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I saw the word “Reagan Republican” thrown around. Are any of these candidates that claim to be in that category of a “Reagan Republican” aspiring to follow one of Reagan’s key conservative principles: Less reliance, less dependence on and reducing the size and role of the government. Or are they doing the opposite and relying on a handout from the State to fund their campaigns? Money, by the way, that was confiscated from Arizonans in the form of “additional fees” on traffic citations when in all actuality they constitute nothing more than a “Speeding Tax” since they have explicit purpose of raising revenue to fund the so called “Clean Elections” system.
I would think that relying on the private sector and the WILLING contributions of individuals that financially support their campaign would be more “Republican” than getting money that was confiscated from people under the threat of imprisonment and the economic penalty of having their driver’s license revoked, which to me, sounds like communism.
I think it’s going to be very hard to stand in front of fellow Republicans and tout Reagan credentials while on the “campaign welfare” system.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Spartan,
That is kind of like telling someone they can’t be a good Republican and send their kids to public school because they are using money “that was confiscated from Arizonans.” I voted against Clean Elections but the fact is that the majority of the citizens voted for it (Prop 200 in ‘98.) Not only does the act use money taken from individuals by the state but also it heavily penalizes traditional fundraising. So a candidate is caught in a bind. If I give to my candidate I am essentially supporting the opponent as well. That is not very Republican either. I do not think Clean Elections makes for a perfect test of who is and is not a good Republican.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
There is nothing “clean” about it, but it is the lay of the land.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Clean elections may not be the lay of the land for long. Speeding infractions (the primary funding source) have decreased since 2002, therefore revenue is down and more candidates than expected are running on clean elections. They may actually run out of money on this election cycle which means they’ll have to run to the legislature to keep it solvent.
Hopefully the legislature (particularly with the current budget climate) will put a fork in it by not providing supplemental funding.
Then what will they do??? Tell the cops to start handing out more speeding tickets? This is the vicious cycle when you take something that is supposed to be a punitive deterrent to minor crime (traffic fines) and turn it into a revenue stream for a government run program. What is especially heinous is that the government that controls the program also controls the cops.
Do your part to help put a fork in Clean Elections: Drive Safely and don’t speed!