AR-02: Challenging Elliott?

A recently created YouTube channel from user “ARKCD2” has apparently been launched solely to challenge State Senator Joyce Elliott on some of the statements she has made during the course of the primary season. Specifically, the user points to her “changing positions on discrimination” as they note the 2009 story of Richard Carroll, the state’s only Green Party representative from Dist. 39 (NLR), and his failed attempts to join the Arkansas Black Legislative Caucus because he was, you know, a white dude.

Said Elliott:

Carroll’s interest in the caucus is “commendable” but “since it’s called the ‘black caucus’ he can’t be a member. It is a caucus defined as being black. All discrimination is not bad. You can discriminate about whether you are going to drink four beers or 10 beers. I would say that’s good discrimination.

The story goes on to note that the Caucus’s bylaws did not mention race as a prerequisite for membership and that Carroll was merely attempting to gain membership to better understand the concerns of his district’s population, which, as of 2000, was 65%.

“ARKCD2” then tries to draw the distinction between Elliott’s statements on discrimination on this issue and the stance she took at the third primary debate last week, in which she said she thinks discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace is always wrong.

Here at the blog, we fail to draw the same “changes position on discrimination” conclusion that this anonymous user tries to put forth. We do find merit in Rep. Carroll’s effort in 2009 because of the particular district he represented, and we have to note that most national and state minority group associations — including the NAACP — promote racial diversity among their membership, though with a clear vision of improving the needs of a particular disadvantaged group. The propriety of not allowing white congressional members in black caucuses is debatable, but being that Carroll’s was the first-ever official challenge to the presumed bylaws, it would seem Elliott’s stated position on that matter was not as radical as it may now appear out of the context of this story.

The channel also highlights another, perhaps more troubling, statement made by Elliott at the second debate in which she alluded to Robbie Wills’ “centrist” primary campaign and discussed how candidates should pivot ideologically only after they are elected.

I’m not voting for somebody who is trying to be down the middle for the sake of being down the middle in a primary; we do that after we get elected.

While we all know that the tone in primaries will change somewhat as the candidate moves away from his or her core constituents slightly in attempts to appeal to less-ideological and independent voters, we certainly want our candidates to uphold the exact same principles throughout the process, right? Especially if they’re actually elected. Just a misstatement from the state senator, or a foreshadowing of some Blanche-style maneuvering?