Womack Looks At New Office
ROGERS MAYOR MAY SEEK BOOZMAN’S THIRD DISTRICT SEAT
Posted: February 3, 2010 at 4:22 a.m.
Updated: February 3, 2010 at 9:40 a.m.
Mayor Steve Womack said Tuesday he formed an exploratory committee to study a possible run for the 3rd Congressional District seat now held by John Boozman, R-Rogers.
This story is only available from the archives. Click here to contact the online desk.
(Advertisement)
« Previous Story
Commissioners Approve Street, Trails Plans
Dick Trammel, a member of the Arkansas Highway Commission, praised the Rogers Planning Commission on Tuesday for moving forward on a proposed eastern corridor. Read »
Next Story »
Other days
100 YEARS AGO Feb. 3, 1910 It is not unlikely that the State Capitol Commission may take a hand in the controversy over the proposed expansion of the tracks of the Little R... Read »
Comments
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Please read our comment policy.
"Reithemeyer noted the timing of the March primary would give Womack ample time to file for re-election as mayor should he lose the congressional nomination." Nothing personal, but shouldn't someone campaigning for a new job be willing to give up their current job? Bob Dole was never given enough props for resigning from the Senate when he ran for the Republican nomination for President in 1996.... Steve is a great Mayor, but the least he should do over the next couple of months is take an unpaid leave of absence from his mayoral gig...
Posted by: fanortner
February 3, 2010 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Should Congressman Boozman step down from Congress while he pursues the U.S. Senate seat? He works in Washington. Mayor Womack's current job is actually in the 3rd District. Should the state legislators who serve in Little Rock from NWA take leave if they get opponents and have to run for reelection? If all elected officials had to resign/take leave to run a campaign, all incumbents would have to resign just to run for reelection. That obviously should not be the case with them or Mayor Womack.
Posted by: lleyjack
February 3, 2010 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Having all incumbents resign would be a good thing for taxpayers.
Posted by: Murphy
February 3, 2010 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
.
Sure anti-incumbency is a sweet thought, except, who will replace them?
.
Posted by: cdawg
February 3, 2010 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Thank you for your apples to oranges comparison of our Congressman running for Senate. If Mr Boozman is not successful in his run for Senate, he will not run for his House seat again, unlike Mr Womack who will have the opportunity to run for Congress, and if that doesn't work out, the quote points out he can still run again for Mayor. Not the same at all. Both are on the Public Payroll, but Mr Boozman is giving up his current job, win or lose. The other examples you give are not relevant because they are not full time jobs, nor are they jobs that are already public sector, paid for by you and me jobs.
Posted by: fanortner
February 4, 2010 at 7:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
To quote from your original post, you said the "least" Mayor Womack can do is "take an upaid leave of abscence" while running. Your unwillingness to apply that same standard to other public officials running for office shows your arguments are more of an attack against Steve than some genuinely held position.
And while you inventing rules about not being able to run for office again if you loose would serve your purposes well, it would not benefit the people of Rogers if, however unlikely, Womack loses. There would be an election and it should be up to them whether he stays in office. I would love to take a bet with you on who would win that race but, alas, I doubt we will have the chance beacuse Womack will be headed to Washington.
Posted by: lleyjack
February 4, 2010 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I think Steve Womack is an asset no matter where he serves. He has a good head on his shoulders and isn't afraid to use it. You can't shake him from his core beliefs. Best of luck to him.
Posted by: suek
February 4, 2010 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
If you read my post closely, the comment involving the word "least" was if he decided not to resign to run for the post. As you pointed out, Mr Boozman already works in Washington representing us. Mr Womack works in the 3rd District managing the day to day affairs of Rogers, not the entire district. My point is that Mr Womack will take a salary from a city while running for a public office. Mr Boozman was taking a salary from his own business when he ran for office. Not only that, but if Mr Womack does not win, he has risked nothing because he still has a public job and can run for reelection without having to make a choice as to which one he wants. Mr Boozman has to make that decision and if he loses in the primary or the general election he will return to the private sector and have to reestablish himself in that community. Mr Womack will not have to do that... he still has a paycheck on the public payroll. As for the other officials running for office, this post was never about them. Thank you for your responses, but please keep the focus on what I said and not any other agenda.
Posted by: fanortner
February 4, 2010 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
If we loose Mr. Boozman, whether it be in the House or Senate, the Veterans will be loosing a good man. He fights for our rights unlike Mr. Womack, who even though he is retired from the National Guard, does not support Veterans.
Posted by: sallyswell
February 6, 2010 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Womack is just one more politician looking for another place to park himself. We don't need another one of those. Rogers has grown because of Walmart - not because of Womack. I know that's difficult for some to fathom - that industry provided jobs and opportunity rather than a politician but it did. If Womack and his followers think that it was he who caused all that growth, one can only wonder if they've been listening to Obama too long.
Posted by: cdnexpat
February 7, 2010 at 8:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
While it is true that Wal Mart is the life blood of NWA, it would be false to say that the Mayor had nothing to do with it. Consider where Rogers was when he took office and where we are now. WalMart was here before him right? He has done much and if you don't believe that then why is Rogers suddenly the center of NWA? Rogers has grown faster and better than the other cities around here. People come to Rogers for a reason and the reasons often are from things he has done.
Posted by: BCGuy
February 10, 2010 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
It's not quite that simple, BCGuy. Would Walmart not have grown if Womack wasn't mayor? Or what about their more recent policy of requiring vendors to have an office in the vicinity of Walmart's home office? That's when the Rogers "boom" happened.
Posted by: susiedavedoerr01092238
February 10, 2010 at 10:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
The point is that growth and development, spurred by Walmart and other businesses, could have gone to numerous other NW Arkansas cities. Womack has to get credit for smart planning, infrastructure investment and strong recruiting, which caused so many businesses to come to Rogers.
Posted by: lleyjack
February 12, 2010 at 7:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I don't think it's accurate to say the boom could have gone to "numerous" other cities. But in any event, where is the evidence that Womack worked so hard to get them to cross the street to the empty lots in Rogers?
Posted by: susiedavedoerr01092238
February 12, 2010 at 8:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.