SCANDAL – 3 “Republican” Scott County candidates refused to publicly say if they support Trump

YOU HAVE OUR PERMISSION TO BEGIN VOTING EARLY  IN PERSON THIS WEEK. DON’T FORGET TO VOTE TO RETAIN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAY ON THE BACK PAGE.

---

In a wider ranging series of questions from the North Scott Press (NSP) candidates for county office were also asked “Do you support your party’s presidential nominee?”

Sheriff candidate (and incumbent) Tim Lane is the only candidate for Scott County office running as a Republican to say he supports the Republican Party nominee for president, Donald Trump.

The others, Auditor candidate (incumbent) Kerri Tomkins, Supervisor candidate (incumbent) Ken Beck and Rita Rawson (incumbent by way of appointment after a controversial process) – all used ridiculous reasoning or evasion in refusing to answer. They seem to be playing chicken with party supporters.

We cannot have a Democrat sweep so we guess they expect Republicans to hold their noses and vote no matter how self-centered and injurious they are to the concept of party unity. 

The game two of them are playing could backfire as one of the independent candidates for Supervisor, Trever Goodall forthrightly indicated his support for Donald Trump and has positions compatible with good government. Normally we call for supporting the Republican candidate but when the office sought is not organized along party lines or certain of our candidates show little deference to party precepts as Beck and Tomkins did in their involvement with the appointment of Rawson, a very recent Democrat, passing over qualified Republicans, and then proceeding to undermine support for the Republican nominee for President chosen by Republicans in Scott County, in Iowa and overwhelmingly nationwide –  one is properly free to return the lack of favor.

Goodall indicated support for our nominee and offered answers to issues the Board of Supervisors deals with as Beck and Rawson offered.  Beck and Rawson have earned no deference. We can bullet vote Goodall or include one of the others to avoid the still worse ilk of the Democrat candidates.  With Tomkins there is no alternative other than a Democrat stooge.

The responses of the three Republican nominees  (set forth below) were weak and uncalled for and in violation of basic Republican standards of harmony and decorum and the ethics of craving support but refusing to give it.  The Scott County Republican Executive  Committee should have summoned them immediately and called them to task, in no uncertain terms to immediately revise and extend their remarks in service to party unity.  If the Scott County Republican Executive  Committee does not address this they prove themselves weak. They should tell the ingrates Beck, Rawson and Tompkins to reflect on the utter evils of the Democrat Party and justify their indifference and why Trump supporters should not be indifferent to them should they continue their disloyalty.

Anybody who reads our screeds in these pages knows that we are very critical of DJT and Trumpistas but we have a different role to play and it is in line with keeping the GOP conservative. We have never advocated not voting for Trump in the general or been indifferent to Democrats winning.

Indeed Trumpistas can blame themselves for Beck, Rawson and Tompkins. Trump supporters dominated the precinct caucuses and made much noise about their desire to hold the party fast  . . . but what do they do . . .  they don’t show up to vote in the primary election. If they did they were not paying very much attention. Beck, Rawson and Tomkins each had primary opponents who indicated support for Trump, even championed him.  Given the turnout, Trumpistas voting in the caucuses could have absolutely dominated the primaries but they did not or only spottily. And that was true statewide. Here the three indifferent county candidates won.

But alas the Democrats are members of the evil party and we are members of the stupid party, evidenced once again by the ingrates Beck, Rawson and Tompkins and the indifference shown by them toward other Republicans.  Well we do not have to be saddled with one of them or a Democrat. Voting for Goodall is some expiation. By their own standard the position is above party or something.

There is some risk in voting for an independent, Democrat Bribriesco is as lefty as they come, and is the only announced Democrat running who they will most likely bullet vote for. This leftist could get in unless she is number three (it is a vote for two election). She deserves to be number five of the five running.  That fault would extend from the lack of unity demonstrated by Beck, and Dawson toward Republicans. Being a Republican is of no import to them, if not in saying so in being consistent about it.

Seriously what kind of “Republican” can look at what is at stake in the presidential, who the Democrat candidate is and what that person stands for and be indifferent and not just merely say – of course I support my party’s nominee or even the self-centered ~~ I appreciate my party’s nominees?

The responses of all the candidates to the questions posed by the North Scott Press are available at:

https://www.northscottpress.com/stories/nsp-candidate-qa-legislative-and-scott-county-offices,169150

There may be a paywall.  You can subscribe to the NSP e-edition for one week for $3 or for a month for $6.

All candidates were asked by NSP: “Do you support your party’s presidential nominee?”

Tim Lane answered:

“I support Trump for President. When he was president, I supported his handling of the economy, foreign policy, and the First Step Act. He was very supportive of law enforcement, American businesses, and American Labor.”

That is a fine response that no one will be aghast at who would ever vote for a Republican in a presidential year. All that is required of party loyalty is ~~ I support the nominee of my party. — the following Republican candidates found that too  discomforting:

Kerri Tomkins answered:

“First, many brave men and women have died so I do not have to tell anyone how I vote or intend to vote. Second, I believe the right to vote is sacred and work hard every day to uphold that right in Scott County. In this position, I have a personal policy of not endorsing any candidates. The role of the auditor does not create policy. The job requires the position to follow the law. Therefore, if reelected, I will continue to uphold the Code of Iowa while performing the duties of auditor, regardless as to whom is elected President of the United State”

The first two sentences are pure claptrap.  As to the next two sentences of her statement: ~~ A policy of not endorsing any candidates and ~~ the role of auditor does not create policy.  They should be read together.  Executive positions of course create policy within their departments and recommend policy for enactment by legislative bodies. Apropos the Auditors position, is Tompkins  saying she has nothing to say about laws affecting the integrity of the vote and will not be an advocate for policies that improve the integrity of the vote within her department or from the legislature?  Somebody should clue her in that that is what executives do. Is she saying she will remain blind and unresponsive and not be an advocate for policies that are ineffective at insuring the integrity of the vote? Her response is incredible.

The Republican Party and its various candidates have positions that advocate for insuring the integrity of the vote. She should not be indifferent to improvement,  complacent about what is problematic,  or neutral on party positions or their candidates in furtherance of insuring the integrity of the vote.

Furthermore she is running in a partisan position. She craved party endorsement — she chose not to run for the Democrat nomination or as an independent. She was given the Republican nomination based on assumptions about strength of adherence to integrity of the vote and the appropriateness of advocacy.  By her limited formulation of the position we should just have a CPA firm run the electoral aspects. Accordingly she would not be hired.

A CPA firm worth its salt would look at the chain of custody protocols the actuality of the verification of the vote and tell their client changes need to be made to insure accuracy of eligibility and more. Yet CPA’s have run in the past and been passed over because it is a partisan position that involves policy.  Auditors most certainly should engage in policy recommendatiuons and voters should know what they are.   You can have good partisan originated policy positions or bad ones.  The Republican positions are good, Democrats bad.  It is not hard. Consider her opponents statements on his website:

The right to vote should be sacred and accessible – Iowa Republicans feel otherwise! Let’s make Iowa the great state it used to be.(Ed Note: as in “blue”)

This right is under threat under the current leadership by their actions to not protect the voters and elections. (Ed note apparently their oare partisan policy differences)

All code words against Republicans existing policy even with all its weaknesses. Tomkins in trying to escape responsibility by denying  the appropriateness of policy recommendations, implementation, and endorsing of candidates that support them.

It should also be understood that in spite of her denial of policy involvement the Auditor is a member of the  Scott County Executive Board of Supervisors Vacancy Committee. That group fills political vacancies within the Board of Supervisors, also a distinctive policy position. So how are citizens to evaluate her predilections about policy and people to fill such a role unless she owns up?

Tomkins was involved in the selection of Rawson to fill the term left open by Tony Knobe after his move to become County Treasurer. Did she not evaluate Rawson and other candidates’ policy positions? As it turns out her policy like Beck’s and Rawson’s — are hidden from public view, as to who they passed over.

Tomkins must think the position is above politics, if that is the case she should run as an independent and pursue making the position non-partisan in which case she would be part of moving Scott County on to being another Davenport City Council — and we all know how effective and scandal free that has been.

Tomkin’s last two sentences are just more claptrap.

Ken Beck answered:

“I encourage everyone to do their own research to determine who the best candidate is; however, local elections make the biggest impact on Scott County residents. I will continue to remain open to all ideas, and make my decisions based on what will best serve the majority of Scott County residents.”

The question was asked because it says something about you, your predilections on matters that come under the purview of your role in government,  which is actually quite broad-based under Iowa’s home rule provisions. The question cuts to the quick of why Trump supporters should vote for you, do you appreciate his platform or object to it?

You are running for a partisan position. Do you appreciate the Party nominees over Democrats or not?

Rita Rawson answered:

“This is an unethical and inappropriate question as it undermines our system of voting rights and confidentiality and has nothing to do with the Board of Supervisor position.”

What absolute nonsense calumny really. Again as above, the question was asked because it says something about you, your predilections on matters that come under the purview of your role in government,  which is actually quite broad-based under Iowa’s home rule provisions. The question is important because it cuts to the quick of why Trump supporters should vote for you, do you appreciate his platform or object to it?

You are running for a partisan position. Do you appreciate the Party nominees over Democrats or not?

---

All should feel an obligation to vote and to pick best among the sinners because we all are. VERITASPAC.com hereby “authorizes” people to vote early beginning this week if done in person.  Vote by mail should only be done by actual out-of-towners and the physically unable. We of course will continue the most secure way of voting in person on Election Day where we will present a valid ID,  offer a signature sample, and have our vote recorded instantly instead of having it lay around for however long. Previous generations voted essentially only on Election Day and did so at a rate higher than we see today. Showing a little of their pluck honors them, the franchise, and is superior as to fraud prevention and is a better good government approach at least compared to voting weeks early.