Tucson Endorsements – Incumbents and Liberals

     The Tucson area traditional media has made several political endorsements. Their picks are mostly a boring list of incumbents. They are so predictable the word banal comes to mind.

     The Arizona Daily Star went the incumbent route and lined up behind both the unengaged Ann Day over businessman Joe Higgins in District 1 and the moonlighting Ramon Valadez over the spunky Robert Robuck. Why not just put out a statement saying “Vote for the incumbents” and save everyone the gas wasted driving down for a setup interview.

     The Star sings a sad song about only endorsing in primaries where there is no real opposition in the general. At this point we could even do without these few predictable primary endorsements.

     Next up, the Tucson Citizen does endorse in primaries but they stuck with the same incumbent theme. When their was no incumbent they went with the most liberal or least conservative candidate, especially those opposed to the marriage amendment. For Pima County they went with all 3 incumbents. In LD 26 they chose the one candidate opposed to the defense of marriage ballot measure. In LD 30 they went with the two least conservative possibilities.

     An interesting point to the Citizen endorsements is that except in one minor case they went with the single or divorced over the married, family oriented candidates. The question arises is the Citizen anti-marriage and anti-family? They even picked one candidate because of his opposition to marriage. Their one variation from this rule was their pick of family man Gene Chewning over the single Joe Sweeney. Watch the Citizen slide off the deep end with their interview of the two candidates. After Sweeney is done discussing the sodomy laws the Citizen asks him about marriage for Transgender people. Is this the burning issue for the voters? Transgender marriage? Surreal.

     In an exact mirror of the Citizen, the Tucson Weekly goes for another hat trick on the 3 incumbents for Board of Supervisors. In the ultimate tip to liberalism they pick Hershberger for senate in LD 26. They match the Citizen again in picking Collins and Sposito for LD 30. One small variation is their choice of Humphries along with Williams in LD 26 house. Makes us wonder what Humphries said to get an endorsement from the Weekly. For ACC the weekly picks the left leaning McClure and Wong.

     One somewhat interesting list of endorsements came from Emil Franzi of the Explorer. He breaks ranks from the liberal media and goes for Melvin in 26. Interesting Franzi sticks with the moribund and not always gun friendly Day in the supervisor race. Franzi goes with Humphries in the house contest. We wonder if he wrote the article before or after Williams’ melt down on Saturday.

     We are not the only ones to notice the pathetic level of thought that went into these endorsements, especially from the Citizen. Matt over at SED wrote a good piece on how sad the media slate is.

Not to be left out of the action, Supervisor Ray Carroll has endorsed Vic Williams in LD 26 along with John Kromko in LD 27. Find the common thread there.

     The best part of these endorsements, especially those from the fervently liberal Star and Citizen, is that conservatives can vote the opposite from the endorsements and rest assured they have done the right thing.


  1. What no mention of the Red Star mentioning Sonoran Alliance as “a Tucson blog worth bookmarking?”


  2. Sonoran Sam says

    Of course, if you disagree with an endorsement it’s bland or stupid.

    Couldn’t you simply disagree – and offer valid reasons?

  3. Kralmajales says

    I can get you on the endorsements of incumbents only…but this bizzaro link to divorced, single, and some kind of notion of anti-family is preposterous.

    As for the so called Protect Marriage Amendment (no on here has yet to explain why this protects marriage or how same sex marriages will harm your marriage, or society, or anything else)…

    Show me your real reasons…persuade us with real justification. I’d love to hear it.

    On that note, I voted today for Hershberger, Humphries, Ann Day, and Wong Corporation Commission.

  4. Sam, Day is bordering on senility. Staff does all the work while she plays bridge and golf all week except on Tuesdays. Valadez has a full time job with Southwest Ambulance and is moonlighting as a supervisor. He is hard to reach. They waste a bunch of taxpayer funds on needless lawsuits; RTA, Rosemont, etc. Bronson has done nothing about Roger Road water treatment plant.

    All three incumbents in question voted against transparency in government with the RTA vote. Sure they have lots of experience, in not solving problems. Wasted funds in the para-bureaucracies; TREO, All of the Tucson alliances, Chamber (See SED link.) The taxpayers are not getting a good return on their money.

    Kral, regarding marriage I personally would have preferred an amendment to the constitution taking the decision away from judges but still leaving it to the voters, where is belongs.

  5. Its interesting to note that, if anything, the Citizen has gotten to the left of the Star.

    Also, in primaries at least, the endorsement of the Citizen may repell more voters than it attacts.

  6. Sonoran Sam says

    Good choices, Kral.

  7. Your comments on the STAR and CITIZEN are reasonably accurate. I suspect that in some cases, conservatives will look at their endorsements and vote the opposite if they know nothing else.

    As a longtime colleague and good friend of the WEEKLY’s Jim Nintzel, please cool the paranoia over Trent Humphries. Nintzel, although tainted by a liberal perspective, sees in Trent what I do – a guy who sincerely studied stuff and would make a bright and competent legislator. Face it, people – there are SOME candidates running on the conservative banner who can barely remember their names and are kind of embarassing. Kinda like the majority of the Tucson City Council.

    And yes, that WAS before Vic melted down last Saturday. I thought I’d give him one more chance and was probably too kind. Danehy wasn’t. My second vote will go to Zerull.

    Forget conservatives – any Republican with a hint of pride has to be offended by the phony claims on signs made for Hershberger by a Democrat-leaning labor group’s Phoenix money.

    Politics is a matter of compared to what. I take Day over Higgins because Higgins listened to too many Jim Click wannabes like Bob McMahon. If you want Click’s clout, raise or donate as much as he does. Higgins never put a coherent campaign together and his track record in the conservative movement is non-existent. I’ll take a known road.

    Higgins has great potential. Like Mitt Romney he needs to spend a little more time learning enough so that folks on the right can feel comfortable with him.

    Thanks for the mention.


  8. Sonoran Sam says


    As usual you’re on the wrong side.

    It gives me solace, actually.

  9. kralmajales says

    Thanks Sonoran…

    Emil and Nintzel are right about Humphries. I read his blog a long time, commented against him ALOT, and found him to be smart, thoughtful, and not doctrinaire to the point of stupidity. He is a guy that people can come to with an argument, present both sides, and will reasonably, thoughtfully, consider it and choose.

    Would I like a Democrat in there, hell yah, but he would represent me quite admirably I think. Hershberger…clearly yes.

  10. kralmajales says


    Thanks for being the only one to respond. Give it to the voters is fine, but I am still not hearing an argument as to how same sex marriage is something that is needed to PROTECT traditional marriage. I also don’t see how it harms society, I also don’t see why it is wrong.

    If it is about religion and peoples personal beliefs about right and wrong, then it cant possibly be kept illegal. It would have to have a clear harm to others to be granted the extra step of codified as illegal…let alone constitutionally illegal.

  11. Kral the fact is that gay marriage is legal. Two people of the same sex can go out tomorrow and get married. They can live together and even buy property as joint tenants with right of survivorship. There is no law on the book that prevents any of these actions. The only question is should the state issue a license recognizing the marriage? I am not married to my wife because the state says I am. I am married because a religious figure of our choosing officiated over a ceremony in which we pledged our lives to each other. Any gay couple in the state can do the same. The question of whether the state should recognize their marriage should be up to the voters as it will be in November.

    If you think the state should issue a license for same sex unions then vote against the initiative in November. If you think the state should stay out of a religious issue then collect enough signatures to put an amendment on the ballot that completely does away with state granted marriage licenses all together and truly returns it to the religious realm and not the secular.

  12. Ken Jacobs says

    Josey, it’s insulting to imply there is equality for gay people in regards to marriage. Very disingenuous post on your part. Maybe if you thought it out you would have phrased it differently. Maybe that’s why your piece on Ann Day’s property taxes got yanked?

  13. kralmajales says

    A same sex couple can get married under God in their church, and a heterosexual couple can get married under God in their church.

    The state recognizes and grants benefit after benefit to heterosexual couples. The state refuses to grant benefits to same sex couples.

    This is discrimination…period. It is also antiquated thought.

    The only reason that I can see for the Protect Marriage Act is:

    1) To support discrimination.

    2) To draw out GOP voters.

    3) So that the Center for Arizona Policy can collect more donations in the “fight” to make it Constitutionally illegal…even though its illegal already.

    Since when did the GOP like having the state…er…the government in its bedroom?

  14. Paul Cunningham says

    Question? I think it is great that people want the issue to be decided by voters. Josey, when are you going to actually say that you don’t think gay people deserve to legally get married. That is what you beleive, because you do not posess the wisdom to accept something you don’t understand, with maturity and self-examination, perhaps you may have a more open mind some day. For now, you are a run of the mill gay basher. Wear it proudly.


  1. […] read a bit on Sonoran Alliance late last week where they mentioned that Vic Williams (whose website is at Vic08.com) had a […]

Speak Your Mind


judi online bonanza88 slot baccarat online slot idn live situs idn poker judi bola tangkas88 pragmatic play sbobet slot dana casino online idn pokerseri joker123 selot slot88