It’s not every day you see a candidate who was busted for a DUI get endorsed by the sheriff for the stated purpose of “keep[ing] our communities safe.”
Sundberg was arrested in December 2009, but strangely was allowed to stay home (he was arrested in his driveway) rather than taken into custody.  The special treatment has never been explained.

Sundberg says he has since given up the drink, but remains on probation.

  1. Anonymous
    October 31, 2010 at 12:17 am

    I wonder how concerned with my kid’s safety he was when he got behind the wheel on the highway with a blood alcohol level of 0.18?

  2. Anonymous
    October 31, 2010 at 4:20 am

    I’m reluctantly voting for Sundberg because of Cleary’s Salzman connection. Sorry, but slime is slime. The Arcata Eye sums it up best, even if it’s actually discussing Gallegos. The blog is part of the slime.

  3. Plain Jane
    October 31, 2010 at 7:00 am

    The T-S endorsed Cleary and Neely!

  4. Anonymous
    October 31, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Did anyone catch the progressive irony? The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear was held yesterday. Its target was the fear cartel of media and punditry, of which the Humboldt Herald fits nicely. We are to fear Sundberg, fear Jackson, fear all Republicans.

  5. Anonymous
    October 31, 2010 at 7:18 am

    By the way, if there was an a miscarriage of justice in the Sundberg case, we’d be discussing why he wasn’t arrested. He was arrested. Stop fear mongering. “Safe?” What a title!

  6. Ed
    October 31, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Fear mongering means to manufacture fear. Drunk driving is a legitimate concern. Coverups are a legitimate concern.

  7. Plain Jane
    October 31, 2010 at 7:32 am

    How many drunk drivers get to stay home after being arrested for DUI rather than be hauled into jail to spend the night in the drunk tank, have to be bailed out and then bail out their vehicle and pay impound fees, 7:18?

  8. Plain Jane
    October 31, 2010 at 7:40 am

    and DON’T get their name listed in the public record as a drunk driver, run for office and have the local news blame their opponent when the information is leaked? Special treatment from start to finish.

    October 31, 2010 at 8:04 am

    Anonymous @ 4:20am,

    There is the option = write-in. You don’t have to feel reluctant in your cognitive decision makings on behalf of 2 un-preferred candidates as implied by your thought. I know, most american voters would rather trash humanoid principles in order to have a 50% chance to say they voted for some winner.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  10. Mitch
    October 31, 2010 at 8:09 am


    Why must you keep bringing up what Hank Sims has officially declared “irrelevant”? Don’t you understand how journalism works?

    October 31, 2010 at 8:10 am

    For many Humboldt citizens,

    the post picture above represents the “out with the old guard and in with their selections”, regardless of either candidate. Yet, neither political camp will go there AND for good political reasons.

    Philp was not the best sheriff imo. In fact, he allowed quite the number of abuses by subordinate personnel to occur while co-opting with certain other elected officials and county department heads. Just sayin’ Philp is not a true bluer neither.

    Downey, now he deserves the opportunity to prove otherwise. I look into his eyes and I see a real man and human being – I may be wrong, but I don’t think so!


  12. Anonymous
    October 31, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Oh, Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey.

    The last time the country looked into someone’s eyes and saw a real man and human being, it was just seeing an experienced shill, actor, and informer. And the rest of us had to put up with years and years of Raygun.

    Please do more than look into people’s eyes.

  13. Another amous
    October 31, 2010 at 8:41 am

    PJ, Ryan was arrested at his home. Maybe cops thought it less expensive to the public if he slept it off at home and not in the slammer.

    Have you watched the debates? Naturally, the Salzman posse asked about the DUI. It gave Ryan a chance to show something of himself and he handled the question very well. He was contrite and forthright about it and did not try to deflect the blame onto others.

    The incident was a big mistake on his part and he learned from it. That is the real test of character, not the mistake itself so much as what a person makes of it to improve himself.

  14. Percival Ne'er-do-well Esquire III
    October 31, 2010 at 8:46 am

    The other cowboy president, George W, did the eye looking into Putin’s to “get a sense of his soul”. Reagan was the old growth redwood lover.

    October 31, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Anonymous @ 8:23 am,

    I have. The eye confirmation is LAST! Now, go spout off to the mirror.


    October 31, 2010 at 9:12 am

    He was contrite and forthright about it….

    My response = not pure and straight-forward though. Front Page Headline News would have annihilated him earlier! This is why PJ is CORRECTO-MUNDO upthread!


  17. Anonymous
    October 31, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Thanks, Percival. One gets one’s Rethuglicans mixed up.

  18. Percival Ne'er-do-well Esquire III
    October 31, 2010 at 9:39 am

    The Sundberg spinners are sounding a little weak this morning. Come on now, you can do better than that. Just think to yourselves, “How would Lee Attwater spin this”. Nice touch demonizing Salzman again, but your overall defense of an entitled drunk leaves something to be desired.

  19. Plain Jane
    October 31, 2010 at 9:45 am

    “The incident was a big mistake on his part and he learned from it. That is the real test of character, not the mistake itself so much as what a person makes of it to improve himself.”

    But he’s still serving his sentence, Another amous. Once he’s successfully finished his punishment, maybe he will be deserving of election. Not now.

  20. Steak n Eggs
    October 31, 2010 at 10:47 am

    The HH has become irrelevent. The box you live in keeps you from thinking clearly and independently. I put you and your sheep in the same category as the haters that spout their partisian BS on talk radio. After awhile, most moderates just tune them out. I think its a really missed opportunity for the majority of americans who want more insight and less spin.

  21. Anon
    October 31, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Cleary has the endorsement of BOTH the Humboldt County Deputy Sheriffs Organization AND the Sierra Club! I’m impressed.

  22. Not Surprised
    October 31, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Who the F is Salzman? He’s no one. Not really. He’s a mouth. He didn’t force Sundberg to drink. Or drive. Or have Downey’s deputies let him stay home (Downey has run the Sheriff’s dept for years, and don’t let anyone lie to you about that, he shouldn’t have been allowed to run).

    The real trick about politics is knowing how little voters actually pay to the people they vote for/against. Here’s a thought… DO SOME DAMN HOMEWORK!

    If voters thought for themselves, there would be no Salzmans to demonize. Do you know why people like Salzman do what they do? Because lazy voters are LAZY!

    Lazy voters keep Fox News in business. They allow for people with criminal records to get elected. They allow for ignorant, pointless and counter-productive arguments to become talking points of election season. Its an embarrassment.

  23. Percival Ne'er-do-well Esquire III
    October 31, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Nice size turd dropping Steak, but not much substance. Need a little more roughage, then you won’t have to squeeze so hard.

  24. Eric Kirk
    October 31, 2010 at 11:05 am

    PJ, Ryan was arrested at his home. Maybe cops thought it less expensive to the public if he slept it off at home and not in the slammer.

    Perhaps. But it was not protocol.

  25. A-Nony-Mouse
    October 31, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Henchman, you can do a write-in if you want towaste your vote. There is NO qualified write-in candidate for the 5th District. If you write someone in, it is ignored. So do yourself a favor and pick the best one available to you. Make your vote count!

  26. Mitch
    October 31, 2010 at 11:28 am

    A-Nony-Mouse 11:16 is correct. I’ll vote for Cleary, despite my emotions screaming at me to write in either Pat Higgins or Fuck You Hank.

    October 31, 2010 at 11:57 am


    How about you state your real, legal name and let the comunity KNOW WHO YOU ARE so they then can make an accurate decision based on WHO is making accusations.

    Anyhow Mouse, your modus operandi is generally always the first argument that a dualopoly participant retorts with.

    Why: Most likely due to the cozy arrangement of give and take with regard to power, conrol, taxation and greed between republican driven citizens and democrat driven citizens who continue to practice insanity with respect to voting for a dualopoly participant/candidate – regardless of worthless ink on paper disguising any election as being non-partisan.

    Mitch – Higgins is qualified by your inference, but not qualified by your agreeance regarding correctness with “mouse”. I am confused as to where your principles and allegiance are aligned.


  28. woodsworker
    October 31, 2010 at 11:57 am

    I guess we all know what side Heraldo is on by now. Not one but two postings that push for Cleary. Sad, Heraldo, very sad.

  29. Plain Jane
    October 31, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    WTF, Woodsworker? What is sad about a blogger making it clear which candidates he supports? Are you laboring under the delusion that bloggers should maintain some sort of nonpartisanship? Have you posted these same whines at the cracked Mirror, Fred’s, Rose’s, etc? I’m betting not.

  30. Mitch
    October 31, 2010 at 12:19 pm


    I think Higgins was the best candidate available by far. I just don’t think it makes sense to vote for someone who is not an eligible write-in and who has literally no chance of winning.

    Like it or not (and thanks to the incompetent or corrupt local media) the race is between Cleary and Sundberg. The decision is painful, but people I respect say vote for Cleary. I will, and I hope others do as well.

    Sundberg may be the nicest man in the world; I really don’t know, but I gather he is well-liked.

    First, I don’t trust those who back him. Second, I can’t vote for someone who had a serious DUI in the past year and was willing to hope his backers could “fix it.” Having someone like that in office will inevitably leave me wondering what about county government the Supervisors think I don’t need to know about.

  31. Percival Ne'er-do-well Esquire III
    October 31, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Hench, stay on your meds wouldja……

  32. Anonymous
    October 31, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    The Sundberg spinners are sounding a little weak this morning.

    actually, it is because this blog is irrelevant.

  33. October 31, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    Which is why you spend so much time reading and commenting, yes?

  34. Anonymous
    October 31, 2010 at 8:35 pm

    i knew that would get a rise out of you. you are definitely driven and dedicated, sometimes clever and insightful and i enjoy the exchange between the extremes here, but a source of unbiased information or a gauge of public sentiment you are not.

  35. October 31, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    And here I’d thought my opinions were so well hidden. Darn it.

    October 31, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    Thanks Mitch,

    It was appreciated your breakdown a bit more. As far as qualifications, are you saying that a person is not qualified even if a majority of people vote for that person as a write-in like that which may occur in Alaska for the republican nominee against another republican Miller is it(???).

    Locally, I had a conversation with elections officials about some paperwork filings AFTER an election where a person who was elected had no idea that they would. Now, as confusing as it is in election FPPC “stuff”, I will admit that a write-in is just as good(a waste) as the votes casted for the losing candidate; so, essentially it is not a wasted vote per se, but in fact a wasted vote since a candidate acceptable to that particular voter had already been disqualified. Additionally, if voters utilized the write-in more often, the election results of sub-50% for any winner (especially in the sub-40% range) shows the voting district/community/electoral base that the remaining TWO candidates just could not take a majority support of that district/community/electoral base.

    I’ll just continue to stick to the foundation of a process of elimination that many folks still would never consider – I am ok with that. Substance and character through consistency is a strong trait when voting, for it may not be the winning vote, but a consistent one.


  37. Voter
    October 31, 2010 at 9:55 pm

    why on earth would supporting someone you think is the best person for the job be called “allegiance”? It’s not that difficult: watch the debates, watch the Sentinel interviews, read their SmartVoter webpages and their websites. Read the Reporta on their funders. See which organizations and individuals endorse them. Then vote.

  38. Mitch
    October 31, 2010 at 10:01 pm


    My understanding is that if you are not on a list of qualified write-in candidates, it doesn’t matter if you get 100% of the vote — your votes never even get counted. (Maybe “registered write-in candidate” would be a better way of putting it than “qualified write-in candidate.”)

    I could be wrong.

  39. tra
    November 1, 2010 at 12:18 am

    Sundberg got caught driving VERY drunk — a .16 blood alcohol level. He risked killing or maiming innocent drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians, due to incredibly poor judgement on his part. In my opinion, by doing so, he disqualified himself from running for public office for the forseeable future. Maybe in a few years, assuming he has completed his probation and not re-offended, he might be a legitimate candidate.

    Sadly, he does not seem to recognize the seriousness of the offense — if he did, he wouldn’t have the gall to run for office in the first place. It seems pretty basic to me that, at the very least, someone breaking laws should have to wait a while before they get to start making laws. Is that really too much to ask?

  40. High Finance
    November 1, 2010 at 6:09 am

    No slime to low for the left anymore?

    One mistake & you all claim he should never run for office, never leave his home, never marry or have children & carry a sign around his neck for the rest of his life.

    Unless of course, he is a liberal. Then we must learn to forgive. We must help his recovery, we must be compassionate and help him move forward.

    Meantime, execute Sundberg!

    Tra, I am nominating you for the presidency of Heraldo’s Hypocrite Club. Plain Jane for Minister of Misinformation & Mouse as Finance Director since he declares himself a financial expert.

  41. Anonymous
    November 1, 2010 at 7:06 am

    ok, even though it is waste, if you caught the debate in mckinleyville, the question was asked. sundberg said he made a mistake, took responsibility for it, did the classes, etc. he also went on to say he quit drinking and thinks that in the long run, he is sort of glad it happened. i am paraphrasing, but that’s what i got out of it. this is a reasonable person’s reaction when they make a stupid mistake: take responsibility, make changes, move on.

  42. Anonymous
    November 1, 2010 at 7:08 am

    HIFI, how did you go from “he disqualified himself from running for public office for the forseeable future” to “he should never run for office, never leave his home, never marry or have children & carry a sign around his neck for the rest of his life” and even execution?

    This “mistake” of driving while wasted on the highway did put other peoples lives in danger does put legitimately put into question Sundberg’s real commitment to public safety.

  43. Anonymous
    November 1, 2010 at 7:12 am

    So now you are ok with having a supervisor that is on probation? Do you even know the terms of his probation and how that might impact the job of supervisor?

  44. Plain Jane
    November 1, 2010 at 7:35 am

    7:08, HiFi doesn’t need a rational path from “a person on probation for a serious crime shouldn’t be elected to public office” to get to “should never run for office, get married, have kids,” etc. He’s INSANE and / or congenitally deceitful.

  45. Mitch
    November 1, 2010 at 7:59 am

    It’s really simple. Thoughful voters would disqualify anyone who has a 0.16 DUI offense in their recent past.

    But people are sheep and do as they’re told.

    If the DUI wasn’t enough, the fact that the electorate was not told until the candidate was “outed” should seal the deal. What can you really expect (not hope for) from a candidate who tries to hide a recent conviction?

    But people are sheep and do as they’re told.

    If ANYTHING demonstrates Humboldt’s contempt for law, it is not the grow houses. Grow houses, assuming they don’t violate electrical codes, don’t pose a danger to anyone. Drunk driving does. If ANYTHING demonstrates Humboldt’s contempt for law, it is the race for Supervisor of someone who tried to get away with hiding their conviction on a 0.16 DUI.

    The great irony is that it’s the law-and-order crowd, supported by some of the “we’re objective” press demonstrating the contempt for law, not the “outlaws.”

    There are a lot of so-called “respectable” people who should never again be trusted after this incident. But, alas, it’s always been thus.

    P.S. HiFi. I’m hurt.

  46. Mitch
    November 1, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Here’s a timely article in The Guardian. A former UK government advisor on drugs (fired because he wouldn’t lie, said firing causing the resignation in protest of many other advisers, because he is a highly respected scientist) says alcohol is more dangerous than heroin and crack cocaine.

    From the article:

    “Overall, alcohol scored 72 – against 55 for heroin and 54 for crack. The most dangerous drugs to their individual users were ranked as heroin, crack and then crystal meth. The most harmful to others were alcohol, heroin and crack in that order.”

  47. Mitch
    November 1, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Incidentally, if Ryan has really given up alcohol, good for him!

  48. Anonymous
    November 1, 2010 at 9:51 am

    What if Ryan was drunk and waving around an unloaded pistol? Would that have been a “mistake”? It would have been a scandal. But somehow driving a ton of steel down the highway at over 60 miles an hour while drunk is ok?

  49. High Finanoe
    November 1, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    Hey HiFi, we miss ya.

  50. High Finance
    November 1, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    I feel like Diogenes here.

  51. Patty Clary
    November 1, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    Glancing over these comments I see a lot of accusations, or maybe just “assertions of truth” bandied around by people who have never taken the time to find out the facts. As someone who has spent her career working to expose the truth by digging for the facts first, I’ve going to say that most of you are lazy slackers. It’s hard work to figure out what the facts are and not just blow hot air. And many of you hide behind some some moniker so you can say things that could be successfully sued for defamation, i.e. with malicious intent, without evidence and untrue. So that’s why I rarely look at this blog, because I am easily bored by lazy low lifers. Notice I signed my name here. I challenge you to do the same.

  52. Anonymous
    November 1, 2010 at 8:35 pm

    Don’t you think a candidate should disclose some “facts” instead of making people did them up?

  53. Anonymous
    November 1, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    oops, “dig them up”

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: