The Tolbert Report

Arkansas House Speaker Robbie Wills sent out a mailer today which seeks to paint his opponent State Sen. Joyce Elliott as a far left liberal.  Content partner Roby Brock has the mailer posted on his blog.

The mailer reads “Joyce Elliott’s Values: Restrict Gun Rights, Outlaw Prayer in Schools, Extreme Abortion Views…Are They Yours”

“I think this is beneath him [Wills]. The things that he said are patently not true,” Elliot told Brock in an interview. “In the process of challenging someone’s record, you need to do so accurately.”

Is the criticism fair? In one respect, yes.  Elliot has never backed down from her left of center positions which fall in line with most others in the Democratic Party.  But the problem is so do the positions of Robbie Wills.

Wills likes to pretend that he is some sort of centrist blue dog Democrat in mold of Rep. Mike Ross.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  As Speaker, Wills used the position to control the House in favor of his Democratic Party and did not buck them on any issues.  In fact, the House under his leadership was so partisan that even Democratic Gov. Mike  Beebe was troubled by it.

In addition, Wills position on the issues in his ad do not significantly differ from Elliott.  Wills did vote for the ban of partial birth abortion but he has said that he supports Roe v. Wade which is the Supreme Court case legalizing abortion of demand.  He is clearly pro-choice just like Elliott.

We have a difficult time knowing where he stands on many other core conservative issues as he has declined to complete key surveys such as the Arkansas Voters Guide from Family Council.  Elliott however did complete the survey and sat down for a video interview with Jerry Cox to go over her answers, whether she agreed with Family Council or not.

In spite of the similar positions the two candidates share, the Wills campaign continues to paint the picture that he is more electable.  It is a delicate dance they are engaging in without bringing up the race or gender issue.  Wills is a white suburban male while Elliot is an African-American female from Little Rock. It should be noted that the small mailer has Elliott’s picture on it in three places.  Is this outright racism? No, but it is definitely being done intentionally.

As a conservative who will voting in Democratic primary runoff, I should be a key target of this type of advertising but at least on me it is not having the intended effect.  With Elliott, I at least know the Democratic nominee will be someone who will be clear on where she stands on the issues.  The November election would likely be one of distinct ideological differences between Elliott and Republican Tim Griffin.  With Wills, we will get someone who talks “Arkansas Values” while he is home and goes to Washington and votes with President Obama and Speaker Pelosi.

My column today focus’ on Steve Womack.  I examine some of the criticism he has been getting in his race for Congress and try to separate the legitimate from the illegitimate.  You can read the column at ArkansasNews.com or in your favorite Stephens Media newspaper.

However, since I know there is interest in this race, here is the full interview which is much longer than my column width would allow.  The interview was conducted via email on Wednesday, May 26 and is posted in its entirety.

Tolbert – One criticism I hear it a lot is that you supported Gov. Beebe in 2006 against Asa Hutchinson.  I have not found much more than anecdotal evidence of this.  Did you support Beebe in 2006 and to what extent?  If so, why and do you plan to support him in 2010 against Jim Keet?

Mayor Womack – First, Mike Beebe is a friend of mine.  Politics does not change friendship…or shouldn’t, anyway.  I always considered Asa a friend as well.  I have a lot of respect for both of them.  But, to your direct question, the answer is NO…I did not support Mike Beebe in 2006.  In fact, I did not publicly support anyone–and the reason is principally because the winner was about to be my Commander-in-Chief in the Arkansas Army National Guard and it would be very inappropriate (not to mention unwise) to be a public supporter of either candidate.  I was (am) also a non-partisan Mayor and again, it is inappropriate to take sides when the relationship with the City of Rogers is at stake.  I did not contribute to either candidate.  I did not make campaign speeches for either candidate.  I did not have signs in my yard for either candidate.  When a public official from our state appears in Rogers, I always give them the professional courtesy that goes with that position.  As such, I have appeared numerous times with Governors, Senators, Representatives, et al during public events.  That is part of my job.

Jim Keet is also a great friend…and I have publicly said I will support him in his race for Governor.  I am retired from the military and the Governor is no longer my CINC.  And since I plan to win this race, any potential conflict with Rogers created by my support of Jim Keet will be moot.

Tolbert - The charge has also been made that you are open to tax increases.  I think the Bledsoe campaign has a tv ad and a mailer comparing your statements to President Obama.  Are you open to tax increases as the ads claim? If so, to what extent?

Mayor Womack – I oppose tax increases.  I have a very strong record on the subject.  I have never raised taxes (or advocated raising them).  In fact, my record will reflect that I tried to reduce the general fund millage on property owners here and when I did not have the votes to pass it, I committed those dollars to two major projects (bond issue) and when those bonds are retired, the tax reduction will take place (1.5 mills).  I can provide the text of the State of the City Address where I advocated such.  It’s in the record.  My record will also reflect that on my watch, we have created thousands of jobs, invested heavily in infrastructure, and dramatically changed the city’s balance sheet.  Few could agrue that Rogers is a blue-chip municipality.  The “all options…” attack from Ms. Bledsoe was totally out of context.  It was in reference to a question at a forum when asked how to ensure Medicare is solvent going forward.  I simply said that because of the group impacted (seniors), all our options had to be on the table.  Senior citizens are expensive to treat, unable to influence their incomes (for the most part), and dear to me.  I cannot turn my back on them.  That said, the only way I would support any tax increase is to save my country.  I believe that spending cuts, stopping job-killing programs (EFCA, Cap and Trade, et al), and elimination of unnecessary and bloated bureaucracy will be sufficient to restore America’s solvency.

Endorsements:  I am proud that I had more than 19,000 people endorse me on May 18th.  My support is broad-based–business, industry, and civic leaders…senior citizens…military veterans…etc.  I have had the support of the NWA Newspapers (Morning News) and The City Wire (Fort Smith).  I carried 7./12 counties, including 44% of the vote in my home county (Cecile’s, too) of Benton.

My campaign:  I have pledged to make my campaign about the issues and my record.  That will not change.  I will keep my campaign on the high road; however I will respond when my character, integrity, and record are challeged.  I think it is important for voters to compare/contrast the records, experience, and skillsets of the two remaining candidates.  On June 8th, I will accept (of course) the outcome.

Tolbert – One follow-up question.  The only tax increase I found for Rogers while you were Mayor was a 2 cent A&P tax passed by the city council in 1999, which I believe was just after you took office.  Did you oppose this tax?

Mayor Womack – No, I did not oppose the A&P.  It was not a tax against the general population of my constituents–it was only a bed-tax–and purposed in promoting the hospitality services of the city.  The proponents were, in fact, the people responsible for its collection–the hotel industry.  Rogers has become a destination-character city and the A&P (Conventions and Vistors Bureau) has been a key “driver” in that transformation.  Note, also, that I don’t vote on these issues. It was brought to us by the Rogers Chamber of Commerce and passed by the Rogers City Council.
Since that time, there has been an attempt to pass a hamburger tax in our city–and I have consistently opposed that proposal.  It would be a tax on the general population since a lot of my constituents eat out.

Jason…one other note.  the City does not receive the money from this assessment on rooms.  It goes straight to the CVB.  I suppose that is how it is elsewhere.  Our council does not “program’ those funds, either.  Strictly at the discretion of the CVB.  And, the CVB is made up of those operators we discussed earlier…and a member or two at large. Can’t remember exactly.

Former President Bill Clinton came into Little Rock to give Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s campaign a boost as she heads into the final days before the June 8 runoff against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. It was apparent that the theme of the rally was that outside groups and labor unions are trying to punish her for opposing them on Card Check.

“This isn’t about me. This isn’t about Bill Halter. This isn’t about any of that,” said Lincoln. “This is about our state and the people of our state. And whether we are going to allow our vote to be bought.”

“This campaign has become about proving a point – proving a point and using me as a pawn. And not just me – as President Clinton said – you as well,” continued Lincoln. “I got to tell you folks, my vote in Washington has never been for sale and your’s shouldn’t be either.

She later told the press that outside special interest groups have spent around $10 million on television ad targeting her.

“The ads and the volume of the resources in this campaign are simply there to buy their vote,” said Lincoln insisting that labor groups are trying to set an example by defeating her as a warning that no other Senator better cross them.

“Outside groups need to go home,” stated Lincoln.

More video from Sen. Lincoln’s full press conference here.

Former President Bill Clinton spoke today at a rally for Blanche Lincoln for Senate in Little Rock amid questions about his involvement in the White House deal to offer Rep. Joe Sestak a job in exchange for him not running against Sen. Arlen Specter.

I was fortunately enough to ask President Clinton about this while the rest of the press was kept away. Unfortunately, as you can see in the video, he refused to answer the question or even acknowledge the question.

Being a blogger, I was not wearing a press pass so I was allowed up to the rope line. The rest of the press was kept several feet away from Clinton and was not allowed to even approach him. This did not go over well.

Sen. Lincoln later explained that her campaign staff was asked by the Secret Service to keep the press away to “preserve the safety of the rope line.”

Just FYI - Since someone asked, I did not know the press was not allowed up to the rope line when I shot this video.  I found out about that after the fact.  In my opinion, all of the press should have been allowed to ask President Clinton questions.

If you have not been following it, there has been quite a bit of controversy this past week involving whether Joe Sestak was offered a job by President Obama if he would agree not run against Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter. Sestak defeated Specter in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary on May 18.

Today, the Washington Post on their blog “The Plum Line” reports an Arkansas twist. Apparently, former President Bill Clinton – who is in Little Rock today campaigning for Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s reelection – who the go between for the White House and Sestak. From their report…

According to the sources, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked Clinton and his longtime adviser, lawyer Doug Band, to talk to Sestak about the race. It’s unclear right now whether the White House will say that Clinton was asked to suggest specific administration positions for Sestak, whether Clinton floated positions on his own, whether Clinton discussed other options not related to the administration, or whether employment even came up at all in the talks.

But the news that Clinton is at the center of this whole story is noteworthy on its own because of the former president’s stature, and underscores how heavily invested the White House was in dissuading Sestak from running. The White House sent Clinton to talk to Sestak because Arlen Specter, constituting the 60th Dem vote in the Senate, was viewed as key to enacting Obama’s agenda.

UPDATE - Politico posts a memo from the White House Counsel Robert Bauer that confirms the story…

“The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.”

NBC’s “The West Wing” explains the strategy in releasing all this on a Friday before Memorial Day.

The U.S. House of Representative voted for an amendment tonight that will repeal the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy by a vote of 234 to 194. From the Arkansas delegation, Reps. Berry, Boozman, and Ross all voted against the amendment while Rep. Snyder voted for the repeal.

Over on the Senate side, Sen. Lincoln has said she plans to vote for the repeal when it comes up while Sen. Pryor said he is a no at least for now.

Michael Tilley with The City Wire digs deeper into the per diem expense of Rep. Frank Glidewell and finds that his reimbursements were much higher than he originally claimed. These reimbursements have become a hot button issue in the race for State Senate district 13 (Fort Smith area.)

“If you want someone who claims to be fiscally conservative, but takes in nearly $50,000 in annual per diem and travel, then Mr. Glidewell may be your choice,” sarcastically wrote third place finisher Jim Medley in endorsing Jake Files.

“Mr. Medley and Mr. Files have yet to apologize for the lies they told at a recent debate, stating that I was paid $47,000 in per diem during 2009. The only per diem I was paid in 2009 amounted to $11,787, not the $47,000 that Files and Medley spent 90 minutes discussing,” shot back Glidewell.

However, it appears that this number only includes reimbursements from the Arkansas Bureau of Legislative Research and ignores reimbursements directly from the House of Representatives and from the Division of Legislative Audit. All together this bring Glidewell’s total for 2009 to $48,271.28. Tilley has this detailed in his article.

(more…)

The repeal of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy crossed a major hurdle today when Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) said that he plan to vote on a compromise bill that will enable the repeal to move out of the Senate Armed Forces Committee and up for a vote on the Senate floor. I asked Sen. Lincoln today how she plans to vote.

“Military readiness remains my top priority,” Lincoln said. “I trust our military leaders to make the right decision on this issue. I am satisfied that a workable compromise has been reached between the Pentagon and Congress that will ensure a smooth transition based on certification by military leaders that military readiness will not be affected if the policy is repealed. I am prepared to vote for this compromise, which enables our military leadership to determine the policy on this issue moving forward.”

So there you have it.

The debate over if there will be a debate between Lincoln and Halter has been answered… sort of…well…not really. But the Lincoln for Senate Campaign said this afternoon they will agree to another debate under one condition – if Halter says where he stands on Card Check.

“My stand on this legislation is the reason D.C. Unions are in Arkansas spending nearly $10 million attacking me and misrepresenting my record,” Lincoln said. “Arkansans know my record, and they deserve to know where Bill stands. If we are going to debate the issues, we both have to be willing to take a stand on the issues.” (Full release on the jump.)

“This is typical Washington hypocrisy to demand an answer about a bill that she co-sponsored only to kill later,” said Laura Chaplin, communications director for Halter for Senate. “This is exactly why we need to have a debate and exactly why she’s trying to avoid one.”

Note, however they still did not answer the question about Card Check. All this could have been avoided if Halter had only answered the question when I asked him in my now infamous interview.

On the same subject, the Coalition for Arkansas Jobs – a group organized primarily to oppose Card Check – released a video today highlighting Halter avoiding this question. They used the video of my infamous interview with credit (thank you very much.)

(more…)

Another day, another union attack ad on Sen. Blanche Lincoln.  This one is from the Communication Workers of America.  It features several apparently middle class workers talking about Lincoln not caring about their jobs.

“I can’t feed my family without a job,” says a man. “But Arkansas middle class jobs are disappearing,” continues a woman. “Because of Washington politicians like Blanche Lincoln.” concludes another man.

Also today, Bill Halter for Senate launched an ad called “friends.”  The ad obviously targets senior citizens and touts Halter’s record on Social Security saying “President Clinton put Bill in charge of Social Security.” The ad also hits Sen. Lincoln for voting “to cut Social Security and Medicare.”

The vote the ad refers to is roll call vote 344 on 7/21/1994 when Lincoln served in the House of Representative.  The vote was for an amendment to the Budget Control Act of 1994. It was offered by Rep.  Stenholm (D-TX) and would have placed annual caps of entitlement spending for FY 1996 through FY 2000.  Sen. Lincoln (who was Rep. Lambert at the time) was only one of 37 representative to vote for the amendment.   So technically the Halter campaign is correct.