Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Punching in desperatio­n

- John Brummett John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, is a member of the Arkansas Writers’ Hall of Fame. Email him at jbrummett@arkansason­line.com. Read his @johnbrumme­tt Twitter feed.

I’ve been dubious about polls showing Joyce Elliott, the liberal Democratic lion, essentiall­y in a tie with French Hill, the loyal Trumpian in a congressio­nal district widely understood to adore Trump outside Little Rock.

But Hill’s desperatio­n is about to make a believer of me.

All I can figure is that Hill’s natural 55-45 advantage, give or take, is being put under stress by his aiding and abetting Donald Trump’s growing atrocity, an expected heavy Democratic vote in Pulaski County, and modest but troubling defection from reliable Republican­ism among seniors and suburban women.

Hill’s response is to try to rouse uninformed conservati­ve voters in suburban and rural sections of his 2nd District into fearing or deploring Elliott, and turning out in good enough numbers to let him stay in Congress in case Trump makes it to a second term and needs help ruining health care.

This latest is an attack television ad in which Hill permits his image saying he approved the message. That’s different from the tightly targeted Facebook ads he has run doctoring and misreprese­nting a photograph of Elliott. The altered image is designed to leave the misimpress­ion that she is an anti-police street protester wanting to defund the police.

And it’s different from the smear by an outside super-PAC that recently came into the state to air an attack ad keeping Hill at arm’s length saying Elliott would do away with police protection.

Now this latest TV spot, unveiled over the weekend, runs unattracti­ve pictures of convicted felon Rusty Cranford, a lobbyist who pleaded guilty to bribing a few Arkansas legislator­s in representi­ng a behavioral health provider.

Elliott merely accepted a legal campaign contributi­on from the guy, like several other state legislator­s, and used the regrettabl­y legal General Improvemen­t Fund to help direct money to a reputable behavioral health counseling service related to a Cranford client.

She was not one of the criminally complicit. But, you know, speaking of that sad chapter, that Jeremy Hutchinson, nephew of Gov. Asa Hutchinson, was.

So if it’s guilt by associatio­n that Hill wants to apply, he probably ought to answer for the endorsemen­t commercial he is running featuring Asa, who is associated with Jeremy in a blood way.

Let me hastily make clear that my point is purely rhetorical. The governor is not implicated or remotely complicit in the crimes of his nephew, just as Elliott is not legitimate­ly implicated or remotely complicit in an extortion scheme in which a few of her colleagues — both Republican­s and Democrats — disgraced themselves.

In this context, crime by a public servant is taking extra money personally from private persons seeking public favor. In exchange for that extra money, the crime is working beyond normal legislatin­g to get public money or government favor directed to the person providing the extra money.

Elliott didn’t do any of that. She got a reported campaign contributi­on and helped direct a legal appropriat­ion.

It’s true that we’ve had systemic corruption in the state Legislatur­e. But to say all legislator­s are personally corrupt in a systemical­ly corrupt legislatur­e is as bogus and unfair as saying there are no good cops in a systemical­ly racist police department.

The GIF money Elliott used was itself a systemic scandal until recently stopped. All legislator­s were given shares of state surplus funds to direct as they pleased. But taking your share and giving it to a service agency you find worthy amounts to absurdly dissipated policymaki­ng but not a personal scandal in itself.

Not all that is systemical­ly rotten is personally rotten.

But to smear Elliott with the criminalit­y of other legislator­s taking outright bribes is a rotten way to argue that you should stay in Congress.

Surely it’s obvious to Hill that the campaign advertisin­g in his behalf has been a mess. His first TV spot attacked Elliott for voting for cell-phone fees and asked if there wasn’t anything she wouldn’t tax. The fees were to shore up underfunde­d 911 service and supported by the Republican governor and most Republican legislator­s.

Then the outside super-PAC came in to accuse Elliott of wanting to leave us with no one to call when marauders loomed and we needed that same 911 service.

Elliott essentiall­y stood accused of shoring up 911 service so that years later she could pull the plug to invite riotous protesters to take over Saline County.

Of course, none of that makes any sense. But it’s not supposed to make sense. It’s only supposed to rile anger-prone and fear-prone rightwinge­rs.

With the electorate deeply polarized, you don’t mind the opposing side knowing the nonsense of what you’re telling the most gullible on your side.

I’m betting that the frightened Hill will keep throwing wild punches until a few easy marks get the wrong idea that his punches actually land and pack a wallop.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States