Arizona Republic’s endorsement of ACLU Tim for county attorney predictable

We knew it was coming. The Arizona Republic announced its endorsement of Tim Nelson today. Their reasoning? Because he’s not Andrew Thomas. The title is “The Anti-Thomases.” Sort of like why people are supporting Barack Obama – they don’t really know anything about him, they just feel like “change.” It was obvious the Republic (known as the Ministry of Information by Liberty’s Apothecary) wasn’t going to endorse the other Democrat, Gerald Richard, because he doesn’t have the backing of Napolitano and the Democrat Party machine, which has been evident since he hasn’t raised much money.

Nowhere in their endorsement editorial is ACLU Tim’s work for the ACLU mentioned, and how that might affect his decision-making on prosecuting crimes the ACLU defends. Since it is troubling to many that someone who seeks to be arguably the state’s top law enforcement officer has worked for the ACLU – which is always opposing prosecutors – this should be presented to the public as something to consider.

Thomas is criticized for using RICO funds (monies seized from criminal profiteering) on crime prevention campaigns. The newspaper purposely fails to mention that is what the funds are supposed to be used for, per statute.

A. The board of supervisors of a county shall establish a county anti-racketeering revolving fund administered by the county attorney under the conditions and for the purposes provided by this section….

E. Monies in the fund may be used for the funding of gang prevention programs, substance abuse prevention programs, substance abuse education programs, and witness protection….Monies in the fund may be transmitted by the county attorney on behalf of any political subdivision of this state to the Arizona drug and gang policy council for the funding of gang prevention programs, substance abuse prevention programs and substance abuse education programs.

Unlike other politicians who use taxpayers’ money (not even RICO funds) to promote themselves (like Napolitano’s $150,000 billboards featuring her face and Arizona’s “home cooking”), Thomas was merely following the statute. Thomas has used RICO funds for crime prevention messages on TV, radio, billboards, and has given it to organizations engaged in crime prevention in the form of grants. If you don’t like it – change the statute. Otherwise, what is he supposed to do with the money legally??? The Republic is grasping at straws to find things to criticize about Thomas. The alternative? ACLU Tim would probably spend RICO money educating the public about the ACLU.

The editorial states that ACLU Tim won’t go after “gardeners and dishwashers.” Funny, but do you remember reading anywhere that Thomas is going after gardeners and dishwashers? I can’t think of a single headline the Republic has ran indicating he has. The Republic has never worried about the facts getting in the way of a good story.

The editorial blames Thomas for outside counsel costs tripling while he’s been in office (probably not even true). It’s not mentioned that other prosecutors and city attorneys in the state and around the country are also increasingly relying upon outside counsel. It’s not mentioned that Thomas has cut costs around the office probably more than any other similarly sized county attorney’s office in the country. In fact, although Maricopa County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation, the office has fewer employees now than when Thomas took office. In the long term, Thomas is saving money by employing outside counsel to handle inmate litigation cases where it’s necessary to litigate the cases fully so those issues can’t be brought up again in future lawsuits.

The article claims that the election is not about illegal immigration, but about “controversial” Thomas. Thomas is controversial alright – to the Democrat Party and the so-called mainstream news media, because he doesn’t suck up to the politically correct positions held by them. If the public wants illegal immigration laws enforced (which they do, voting with over 70% approval for four illegal immigration measures a couple of years ago), Thomas will enforce those laws diligently, regardless of how the media tries to smear him for going against their ideological agenda.

Funny, in today’s same paper, buried at the bottom of an interior page at the end of some news briefs, it’s reported that the left wing pollster Behavior Research Center finds Andrew Thomas’s approval rating increasing. In March 2007, it was 27%. In November 2007, it increased to 29%, and now it’s up to 33%. Those that thought he was doing a fair job have doubled, and those that thought he was doing a poor job are only at 11%. Everyone else has no idea who he is or has no opinion (32%). Guess the liberal media accusations that Thomas is promoting himself through his crime prevention messages aren’t accurate, since 1/3 of registered voters have no idea who he is or opinion on him.

So if you want a candidate the Democrat Party and liberal newspapers support, vote for ACLU Tim. If you want a county attorney who has the guts to enforce laws the people want and put into place, regardless of whether they are politically correct or not, vote for Andrew Thomas, who we at Sonoran Alliance endorse.


  1. Unlike Gerald Richard, Tim Nelson has ZERO qualifications to be county attorney. But he does have the one thing on his resume that the Republic cares about. He is an FOJ–Friend of Janet.

  2. Sonoran Sam says

    Any incumbent with an approval rating that’s UP to 33 percent is in deep, deep trouble.

  3. Uh…..Sonoran Sam, did you notice that the 33 percent is only referring to voters who have an opinion? If you don’t count the 32% who have never heard of him (so their vote will be negligible, if anything), between the 33% who have a favorable opinion and the 24% who have a fair opinion of him, vs. the 11% who have a poor opinion, he has an overall favorable rating of 73%. I think the Behavior Research Poll shouldn’t use the “Fair” category, but they do it in order to spin it whatever way they want, depending on whether they’re polling a Democrat or Republican….

  4. “probably not true”? – what kind of assertion is that? And the fact that Thomas has cut his budget? Guess what? That’s a function of the economy, not of Thomas’ impecuniousness. Every County office has cut. Even Sheriff Joe has gone wanting. And Pat, you conveniently use the statute to justify Andrew’s cult of personality campaign. Having a talking head stand up and tell you to do, or not do something, has rarely been regarded as effective in selling a message; only in selling the talking head.

    Some posters on SA impress me with their insight. Pat impresses me as a shill with no conscience and no limits.

  5. Sonoran Sam says

    Pat: After all the RICO money Thomas misused for her personal aggrandizement, you’d have to live underground not to have heard of the guy.

    If you don’t have an opinion, it’s likely you’re not voting.

  6. The guy represented the ACLU on one case in twenty something years of practicing law. Just one. And later on, he defended the state against the ACLU. But you harp on that one case like it’s the end all and be all.

    One time Andrew Thomas said that women shouldn’t work outside the home. Since then, he’s promoted several women to managerial positions in his office. But by your standards, Thomas must be painted as sexist.

    Be very careful, lest you lose your credibility.

  7. Happy Hanna says

    Snoring Sam….SHHHHHH!

  8. so 67% of respondents are unhappy with Thomas….

    Thomas and his supporters greatest fear is that the anti-incumbency train will get out of the station – and with all those GOPers who are no longer supporting the party – it is already chugging out of the station….

Leave a Reply