Arizona Central wrote that both Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally have had their campaign faces on, and they should really just be themselves. Both women are running for a U.S. Senate seat.
The paper asks “Is Kyrsten Sinema really a radical?” Is she really “a tutu-wearing leftist?” whatever that means.
Yet, then the Arizona Central defended the the sitting House member as a centrist who co-sponsored 60 bills introduced by Republicans and voted for permanent tax cuts. She was only one of three Democrats doing so. She has also sided with Trump 62 percent of the time.
The editorial continued:
‘But the choice becomes clearer if we’re judging the two simply on their campaign performance. Because Sinema has worn the better mask. Maybe the vitriol of a hard-fought primary got to McSally. But she looked like the smaller person in their only televised debate, repeatedly calling Sinema a liar and, later, a traitor for her decade-old Taliban comments. McSally even sent out a press release saying the penalty for treason was death (though she later clarified that she doesn’t mean Sinema should die).’
The newspaper urges politicians to “get back to a saner time:”
‘We need to get back to a saner time, when senators didn’t call each other names –– or if they did, they could put it all aside after the vote and go get a beer together. There is too much “us and them” in D.C., and it hurts how we are governed.’
Sinema even wrote the book on cooperation Unite and Conquer. That is partly why Arizona Central supported Sinema:
‘In a Washington in which rancor and malice are disturbingly normal, Sinema is the antidote. Leaders like her can come from any party and they are needed more than ever. That’s why in the race to elect Arizona’s next United States senator, The Arizona Republic recommends voters chose Kyrsten Sinema.’
Featured image is a screenshot via YouTube.