Regina Romero

On the night she won her primary, Democratic mayoral candidate Regina Romero told certain groups they would “be part of the decision-making.”

Special interests buy themselves a mayor

Re: the Oct. 20 column “Big money in Romero campaign shows need for reform.”

Just finished reading the Tim Steller Sunday column and was shocked at what I read.

So we have a Democratic City Council member running for the mayor’s job admitting that the donors to her campaign “will be part of the decision-making from now on.” This is an obvious quid pro quo in my eyes. If Regina Romero wins the election for mayor of the city of Tucson, then she will favor all her donors, consulting them to make sure any decision she makes will be acceptable with these donors.

The definition of “quid pro quo” is “a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.” Her donors gave her cash for her campaign, so as mayor of the city of Tucson, she will be expected to give them something in return for their largesse.

These Latino groups Tim Steller mentioned in his column have just bought themselves Democratic Mayor Regina Romero. This reminds me of the way Democrats have run the city of Chicago in the past.

Terry Hlivko

Northeast side

Dems need to show broader concerns

During the Democratic debates the discussion is all about President Trump’s shortcomings and health care. When are we going to hear their opinions and proposed solutions to all the other problems that the new president will face? I would like to hear their positions on, and plans to resolve, problems like North Korea, immigration, the national debt, trade with China, Afghanistan and Iran.

Craig Littlefield


Democratic hypocrisy on ‘lynching’ language

I’d be one of the last to defend much of what the president tweets. In my old neighborhood, we used to label it “bad-mouthing,” second only to “hypocrisy” as a cardinal indiscretion. Today it seems wholly acceptable, especially in politics, to issue a declaration at one point; then turn around and criticize an individual at another point for saying the same thing.

Example. On record, Congressman Jerry Nadler and a number of his colleagues (like Biden, Waters, Brown) declared that the impeachment of President Bill Clinton was a “lynching.” Today, those same congressmen have become vociferously vocal in criticizing the president for what he now labels his current impeachment investigation as a “lynching.”

It’s said that the phenomena is the result of the “ostrich syndrome,” wherein the old bird (though a myth) buries his head in the sand and kicks sand in the face of anyone who differs with him. What’s the rule in your neighborhood?

Don Weaver


President is not

above the law

I was just reading about President Trump’s lawyers arguing in court in New York that President Trump literally could stand in Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and the courts could not even investigate him because he is our president. I am not sure what country they think they live in, but I sincerely hope they are not really talking about the USA.

I am pretty sure we fought a war against England about things like the divine rights of kings. The whole point of our Constitution would seem to be that everyone is equal under the law. I don’t remember the beginning of the Constitution reading “We The People (and the imperial president, if he consents).”

No person in the USA is or should be above the law. If there is someone above the law, this country is seriously broken.

Graeme Williams

Southeast side

Public disrespect

has been normalized

Since Trump was inaugurated as president of the United States, he has disregarded the customs of the office in multiple operations and decision-making. The actions of Republican congressional members Thursday were shocking but understandable.

The president has set the stage for disrespect in both actions, tweets and words at his public rallies.

His campaign slogan was to “Drain the swamp.” He is on the way to destroying the America previous generations have created since 1776. America is on a slippery slope and the direction is down unless customs are observed and those who swore to uphold the Constitution abide by their oath of office.

Billy H. Conn, WWII veteran


We trust 18-year-olds to vote but not to smoke

Re: the Oct. 24 article “Tucson tobacco ordinance may be a precursor to statewide law.”

If 18-year-old adults are unable to make good decisions on their personal use of tobacco and vaping products, it would follow that they also are unable to make good decisions when voting and serving and dying in military service. As with gambling, weed and alcohol, smoking, voting, the age of majority should be 21 years of age.

Joel Lohr


No sanctuary, please; my taxes are high enough

Re: the Oct. 24 article “Regardless of Prop. 205 outcome, there is more that can be done.”

I am sure that Geoff Boyce has real good intentions about immigration; but becoming a “sanctuary city” is not the answer. Has anyone looked at Los Angeles, San Francisco or Seattle? Do you honestly think that those situations will not happen here in Tucson? Slap your heels together and come back from Oz.

What makes Tucson above federal law? Who is going to pay for needs of the influx of people coming to the sanctuary city? My taxes are high enough. It also puts our federally funded programs at risk of becoming no more.

What is the benefit of opening our city to others? If you have the answers please enlighten us all.

Anne-Marie Russell

Northwest side

Solid reporting

on border, water

Re: the Oct. 20 article “Hard drugs bypass border wall, can new barrier solve old problem?”

Thank you for the border article by Curt Prendergast and Alex Devoid. They clearly found, analyzed, and reported on a lot of data not generally available to describe drug trafficking across the border. It is the kind of information we need to make rational and effective decisions and I hope the article finds its way to policymakers’ reading lists. Tony Davis’ article on the ongoing problems with aquifer over-pumping was equally valuable. Arizona voters and policymakers need to know this to help develop effective water management policies.

Beth Grindell


Republican stunt shows basic misunderstanding

You know the drill, folks. “Law & Order” has been airing for 20 years. Detectives (The House) Briscoe, Logan, Curtis, etc. determine if a crime has been committed, interview witnesses, check evidence. They don’t let the suspects’ lawyers interrogate the witnesses. They don’t invite cameras to crime scenes. There are no reporters at their meetings.

It’s only if someone is charged (impeached) that there’s a public trial. That trial takes place in the Senate, not the House (courtroom, not police station). At that time, the defendant can have lawyers, call witnesses, cross-examine, challenge the evidence, etc.

Trump has not been impeached yet, guys. He’s just being investigated. You can’t have a trial without a charge. You get that, right?

Then please explain it to those 47 GOP publicity stuntmen who invaded a secure area to protest what is just normal procedure, taking unsecured electronic devices with them. Remind them that patriotism is loyalty to the Constitution and the American people, not to one particular officeholder. Thank you.

Judellen Thornton