Attorney General Debate

I have a lot to say about the LD 17 House debates (I only mentioned the one man Senate show last post), but first you must watch the attorney general's debate here:



First of all, I really don't understand Tom Horne's career path - from what appears to be a pretty deep and prominent career as a lawyer to a sudden (and to me right now an inexplicable) jump into 8 years as Superintendent of Schools, and now back to Attorney General. I think he spent some time in the legislature, but I can't seem to find out these details in my quick perusal of google. It seems like, to me, he's trying to climb the political latter - I don't think he's done a good job as our Superintendent by the way and for good reason, he was completely unqualified to do it. He's probably more qualified for this position, but if the debate is any indication, he seems to be playing some pretty harsh deological cards.

Felicia Rotellini, on the other hand, brought it. I was first introduced to Rotellini with brief introduction of her by the Republic:

"Whoever the Republicans deliver to the general election will be badly damaged by accusations. If those GOP hopefuls are paying attention - and, rest assured, they are - there is one Democrat they don't want to face: Felecia Rotellini.

She will bring it on.

In this field, she is the ferociously smart prosecutor who has clocked significant time in the courtroom taking down lawbreakers and unwinding the complex strands of financial fraud.

As superintendent of the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions, she slapped $5 million in fees and fines on Western Union for violating laws meant to cut off funds to Mexican cartels. In 1999, she was lead litigator in the successful case against accounting giant Arthur Andersen for failing to protect investors from the Baptist Foundation fraud."

And so, I was anxious to see this in anxious. Please watch the debates, she brought it. From the get go, she was on the attack. Horne accused her of getting into the mud, and I can't really comment on the details of what was said in the debate without more research. But it all sounded relevant enough to me. But most importantly, isn't this what you want out of your public prosecutor? She seems perfect for this position.

I feel a little too partisan (something I'm trying hard not to become) to be so consistently Democrat so far, but in this case, I think Rotellini is the superior candidate.

And truthfully, at least in my voting areas, I think the Democrats have honestly the superior candidates - but there's still a journey to take and more candidates to analyze.