Conservative Arkansas Endorsement Misrepresented by Sue Scott Campaign

As you probably know, Conservative Arkansas has endorsed numerous candidates in the upcoming general election. Among those included is what some might consider a more controversial choice for State Representative in District 95, Independent candidate Mark Moore. The only other contender for this race is Republican Sue Scott, who did not participate in our vetting process and neglected to respond to several queries for our questionnaire. We have also confirmed that Candidate Scott has not yet responded to surveys from Arkansas Family Council or the gun rights P.A.C. Arkansas Carry, other respected organizations with whom we share common goals.

On Friday, September 28th, Conservative Arkansas’ board became aware of statements made by an officer of the Republican Men of Benton County during their monthly luncheon earlier that day. Albert Langley, who also works on
Sue Scott’s campaign, left their membership with the strong impression that Conservative Arkansas regretted or was reconsidering its support for Mark Moore, as witnessed by our own vice chairman. While we appreciate Sue Scott’s recent efforts to reach out to us, any willingness to speak with her was strictly a matter of professional courtesy, as it was clearly communicated that a change in our endorsement decision was not open for consideration.

Conservative Arkansas has never reconsidered support for Independent candidate Mark Moore, and in fact has only grown more confident in the decision to endorse him. We encourage the voters of District 95 to get to know both candidates, and we hope that after careful consideration, they’ll cast their votes for Moore for State Representative on November 6th.

For further questions, please contact our Executive Director, Patsy Wootton, at 479-236-8915.

20 comments to Conservative Arkansas Endorsement Misrepresented by Sue Scott Campaign

  • Leon A. Caster

    “Sue Scott, who did not participate in our vetting process and neglected to respond to several queries for our questionnaire…We have also confirmed that Candidate Scott has not yet responded to surveys from Arkansas Family Council or the gun rights P.A.C. Arkansas Carry, other respected organizations with whom we share common goals.” Is this still true?

    Have you checked out why she did not respond? She was out of the country; the USPS placed the envelopes containing the questionnaires in the wrong box so that they were delivered to her days after they should have been. I don’t expect that there would be a change of endorsement, but I DO expect the truth be told! Have you vetted her on the questions in the questionnaires? Are there not extenuating circumstances?

  • Patsy Wootton

    I spoke with Sue Scott and Albert Langley Friday evening. Sue said that she DID talk to Albert after the event to let him know that Conservative Arkansas was not considering changing their endorsement. I told her that it would have been nice if she had spoken up during that announcement and set the record straight then and there. She agreed that that is what she should have done. And she apologized for not having done that very thing. I did let her know that I would be issuing a press release, to set the record straight.
    Sue and I have exchanged a few emails, and I did send her our questionnaire again, on Sept. 16, telling her that we were still interested in her answers. As of today, we have still not received any answers.

  • Patsy Wootton

    Due to statements made at the Benton County Republican men’s meeting Friday afternoon, Conservative Arkansas felt it necessary to issue a press release to set the record straight. The attendees were left with the impression that CA wanted to revisit their endorsement of Mark Moore. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are even more certain that we made the right decision.

  • Patsy Wootton

    We sent Sue Scott our questionnaire via email and never received a response. She said she did not get the email, as she was in France for two weeks. We have exchanged a few emails, as she was wanting to meet with me. I’ll be glad to meet with her. However, I re-sent, by email, our questionnaire on Sept. 16, and still have not received a response to our questions. We happen to think that voters deserved to know her stand on issues that are important to conservatives. We are still awaiting her response.

  • Jim SF Ret.

    Doesn’t pay attention? Assumes she will be endorsed? Republicans FUMBLE THE BALL AGAIN?

    Yep. Sue needs to be in office. I just hope she wears slacks as I assume she’ll have her feet up on the desk and a cigar in her jaw. She certainly won’t be on the phone LISTENING TO HER CONSTITUANCY.

    IMHO !!!

  • Jeff and LeAnn Pund

    So is Conservative Arkansas saying that candidates who put their position in writing on these questionares are somehow more qualified or the better candidate? Or that the only way voters find out about the views of their candidates is from a silly questionare? What happened to old fashioned knocking on doors, speaking to the people in person, attending functions and supporting causes close to the candidate’s belief. Which I know Mrs. Scott does every day. Anyone can put information on a piece of paper, but do their actions support their answers? Funny how Conservative Arkansas questionares were not filled out by many candidates. (see Conservative Arkansas’ own website for a comparison of who did vs. didn’t. Quite possibly because this organization seems more interested in bashing a candidate for not filling out their paperwork than anything else. Ms. Wooten, do you not have more pressing issues to deal with than who filled out some paperwork and who did not? Did you also consider that the endorsement comment was not made by Mrs. Scott? You state above that Mrs. Scott apologized that SOMEONE BESIDES HER misspoke. And you even admit that Mrs. Scott has asked and agreed to meet with you several times. I would think that a face-to-face interview would be much more informative and useful than an email questionare. Why have you declined her offer? Is the pot calling the kettle black here? I challenge Conservative Arkansas to sit down with Mrs. Scott. I have directly spoken to Mrs. Scott about her views and stances. She has encouraged anyone to call or email her and has made her contact information readily available for all. Mrs. Scott is fully focused and committed to her campaign. I am sure that is why you are getting no response to your silly questionares. Mrs. Scott has my vote first and foremost for being a lady; something Ms. Wooten that it looks like you could use a lesson in. Call yourself conservative??

  • Shelle

    As a member of CA, I was at the meetings and voted. It was a democratic process. As a PAC, there are regulations set forth in their rules – protocol. One issue was the questionnaire be filled out. All members were able to review each answered questionnaire and vote (secretly) accordingly.

    I know Mrs. Wootten personally and she has more lady in her than any other ten women in the westside. She and all the board members are fair beyond measure.

    If this is a slam because of “silly questionnaires” why are your panties in such a wad about it? Get over it, encourage your candidate to fill out the questionnaire next time, and move on.

    It wasn’t as if the people only had a day to fill them out, they had weeks.

  • Jennifer

    Interesting. I wonder if either of the Punds, as well as they profess to know Sue Scott, have put the same effort in getting to know Mark Moore. If they had, they’d know he was both the most conservative and the strongest leader, regardless of a “silly” questionnaire, although the answers she finally submitted to Arkansas Family Council’s “silly” questionnaire are certainly very telling. No wonder she was reluctant to answer any.

  • Christine

    Mrs. Scott did not fill out FOUR candidate surveys that were prsented to her. You can’t complain about Sue not getting Conservative Arkansas’s endorsement if she won’t do the first step in the endorsement process. The rules were explained to her and she did not participate. Personally, if she wants to not participate in Conservative Arkansas’s survey, that’s ok with me, but there were 3 other surveys she did not answer, including Arkansas Right to Life. If Mrs. Scott wants to represent the people of Benton County in Little Rock, she must do more than knock doors. She must be able to articulate her policy views. That is what legislators are expected to do. She will have to be able to face the pressure in Little Rock, and people must know if she has what it takes.

    I was personally shocked by her VERY LATE response to Family Council’s survey in which she stated (with improper grammar) that she thinks “any car [sic] a doctor deems necessary needs to be provided” in response to a clear question about abortion. This is not a “misspeak,” because she was able to take time to put that in writing, and that was the best she could do?

  • Christine

    Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Pund, someone else besides Sue Scott “misspoke,” but Mrs. Scott was SITTING RIGHT THERE listening to it and did not speak up! That is the key here!

  • Jeff and LeAnn Pund

    LITTLE GIRLS outside of the Bella Vista polls yesterday holding signs for Mark Moore regarding abortion. Many townspeople in Bella Vista talking about how awful that was yesterday. No grown adults to help support his bashing, had to use small children? Yeah, he sounds like a real conservative leader. Good luck to your candidate.

  • Christine

    There were several people there supporting Mark yesterday, including adults. There was a short window when some teenage girls and boys were there–not “little girls.” The teenagers volunteered to do it. Mrs. Scott was apparently not above attacking them either. Her “friend” demanded to know how much they were getting paid. As if teenage girls can’t possibly know anything about life issues or choose to support a Christian family man they believe in. May the best person win!

  • Matt

    Mark Moore was among the adults who were at the same location as his young campaign volunteers yesterday. As Christine said, adults were present at most times but apparently not when the Punds noticed two young people holding signs for Sue Scott’s opponent.

  • Shelle

    I suppose by the Scottsians, we should not inform our children about abortion? Mine are 39, 21, and 20. They have been informed on moral issues from a very young age and it has carried over into their adulthood.

    I am as proud if the Keller children as anyone could be, for several years, and especially when I heard them recite the Declaration of Independence a few years ago…when they were much younger. Anyone who can sleight them in any manner is an insensitive buffoon.

  • Matt

    Say Mrs. Pund, would you happen to be closely related to Sue Scott?

  • Leon A. Caster

    Points of history:
    1) Sue Scott was out of the country when E-mails were sent concerning vetting questions and returned the day after the endorsement meeting which was in August. Perhaps the questionnaire could have been E-mailed to her even before the primary season ended since she had no opponent and a call could have been made to check to see if she had received it. That would have placed the questionnaire arrival time before she was out of the country.
    2) I was also baffled by her not correcting Albert Langley concerning his comment about Conservative AR reconsidering Mark’s endorsement thus I meant with her to pointedly ask about it.
    a) She did NOT authorize Albert to make such a statement; they had not talked about such a statement.
    b) As unbelievable as it sounds, she didn’t hear him make the statement because
    Dick Trammel who was sitting behind her was off task. He was talking about where she could place two yard signs on property he owns. When that inappropriate discussion ended (inappropriate because someone else was speaking), the erroneous “reconsideration endorsement” comment had been made. Unfortunately assumptions have been made and have been posted instead of two Christian ladies making it a matter of great importance to go to each other to clear the record so that only truth is posted. I am still praying and believing such a meeting will take place. (Yes, Patsy, I am aware that you called Sue. She was out to dinner when she received your call and was not really available to enable a “calm, factual conservation to cover perceptions and misperceptions about what had happened.
    3) I have a photocopy of Sue’s response to the Family Council Candidate Survey. Question 8. Abortion: Paying for abortion with public funds under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law by President Obama. Sue’s handwritten response was as follows: “Any care a doctor deems necessary for a patient needs to be provided; I disagree with it however…(unable to read the rest because of poor quality photocopy). Yes, Christine, I do understand the use of “sic” when an error is noted. “Care” was clearly legible on the copy which is currently next to me. Perhaps we can compare notes on the part where the photocopy is of poor quality.
    Question 7: Roe v. Wade: “It is not my belief.”
    4) National Pro-Life AR Candidate Survey: all answers marked “Yes” with a handwritten note on question 3: Will you vote to require that abortion providers provide the mother with the opportunity to see an ultrasound image of her child before the abortion takes place? YES (except in a case of incest). If you are concerned about the exception like I was, ask her. She gave me a compelling answer.

    Again, my point about this post is to say all or most of the above could have been avoided if the following would take place:
    a) A sending of forms to candidates if no opponent in primary and a follow-up call and certified delivery return if no response after e-mail and call. Need to check with USPS to find out if mail placed in wrong box would count as delivered as in three cases but not Conservative AR because Cons. AR sent E-mail only—this time.
    b) A meeting between the two parties with appropriate representation on both sides.
    c) The goal must be remembered: Conservative AR is a creditable organization upon which member citizens can depend to uncover deception and present truth to assist voters in making an informed decision to preserve the United States as started by our Founders.

    I didn’t write this post sooner because I have been sick for many days this month. If you wish to question me about it, I can provide testimony from my employer and a doctor. We need to work together as friends with a worthy cause. If Sue had been vetted and had come up short, I would not be writing any of the above. I am certain that we can improve the process (see suggestions above).

    I respect and appreciate Patsy for her work. I can say the same for Christine, Mark M., and Sue Scott.

    Please note that this post may have an error or more in it which will be noticed tomorrow, but I must go to bed so that I can get to a 6:30 men’s cell group. Good night all.

  • Shelle

    WE VOTED! What, does she want a sympathy nod? This reeks of entitlement, something conservatives are endeavoring to put an end to.

  • Leon A. Caster

    Shelle,

    I am shocked that you would even think about a “sympathy nod/entitlement.”

    The two ladies, Patsy and Sue, need to get together to resolve this. Yes, a vote was taken and an endorsement resulted. Sue had NO opportunity to fill out the form to qualify her to be brought to an endorsement vote which is where my objection lies. Believing that we wish to be an honest organization, we should do our best in the future to see that forms are sent out far in advance when the candidate is known to be in the final election (no primary contest). A phone call needs to be made if the form is not returned. E-mail addresses and computer challenges abound. If there is no answer to the e-mail and phone calls, send a letter by USPS Certified Mail which requires every Certified Mail letter to be signed for.

    A fair opportunity needs to be available to any candidate who wishes to be endorsed by CA or the process becomes a sham and the organization becomes irrelevant and therefore ceases to have any effective influence in the process. I think you would agree that CA needs to grow in relevance because it is respected. Is this too much of a goal for which we all should work?

  • Shelle

    Four words, FOIA.

  • Matt

    A fair opportunity was made available to Sue Scott if she wanted to be endorsed by CA. It was the same opportunity all of the other candidates received. Leon, what you seem to be saying is that CA should have made an additional effort to reach out to your candidate to be sure she got our endorsement. Our group doesn’t play favorites, regardless of the candidate’s party affiliation.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  

  

  

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.