McSally Unendorsement

On this page, a few weeks before he announced it, we endorsed the idea of Gov. Ducey appointing Martha McSally to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by the death of John McCain.

[...]

Her voting record hasn’t exactly mirrored her rhetoric when she’s here, however, such as voting with the White House to move funding from military bases, such as Fort Huachuca, in favor of building a border wall. She’s also voted in favor of cutting medical coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.

Those are policy issues with which we disagree, but disagreeing over policy is how our government should operate. We can respect someone who stays true to his or her principles, even when we disagree over policy.

And then there was last Thursday.

While walking to a conference room, McSally was asked a question by CNN reporter Manu Raju.

“Senator McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial?”

McSally’s reponse was, to say the least, surprising.

“Manu, you’re a liberal hack. I’m not talking to you.”

Raju’s question was fair, given the Democrats’ push for evidence and witnesses at the impeachment trial of President Trump.

[...]

Again, it’s reasonable to disagree with policy.

What is not reasonable is name-calling like a third-grader on the playground.

McSally herself released a video one of her staffers recorded of the exchange — a recording that started well before Raju asked his question, which makes us think that McSally’s response was preplanned, no matter what Raju was going to ask.

And given that the McSally video was immediately used for fund-raising and to solicit support from the president — it did — we tend to think that was all a campaign ploy. After all, McSally is behind Democrat Mark Kelly in the polls and is lagging behind him in fund-raising, so she needs to do something.

[...]

Appealing to the hardcore 30 percent that supports Trump no matter what evidence turns up, or what even he himself says, may be her only chance for a hail-Mary win over Kelly.

[...]

We thought she was a principled person who would take a position one way or the other and stand up for what she believes is right. Not everyone would agree with whichever side she fell on, but we would respect her holding to her beliefs.

We didn’t expect her to be revealed as a political opportunist, willing to debase herself and dismiss her constituency in the dying hopes of holding on to a seat she couldn’t win on her own.

  Eastern Arizona Courier

Ouch.