Wilson, Pearce spar over history of Cannon vote

Sparring between Republican Senate candidates Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce continued on Monday with back-and-forth accusations related to the history of the decision to mothball Cannon Air Force Base.

I wrote last week that Wilson was accusing Pearce of attempting to rewrite history by falsely stating that all five members of the New Mexico delegation signed a letter shortly after Cannon appeared on the base closure list saying “please let us mothball” Cannon. She also said Pearce has given differing explanations for his vote to OK the mothballing of Cannon.

Over the weekend, the Associated Press published a story on the situation that included this paragraph, quoting Pearce spokesman Brian Phillips:

“Pearce voted for base closings after assurances from Defense Department officials that a new mission would be found for Cannon, which in 2005 housed three F-16 fighter squadrons, Phillips said,” according to the Associated Press article.

That prompted another Monday release from the Wilson campaign.

“Last week, Mr. Pearce falsely claimed that the entire New Mexico delegation had signed a letter asking to mothball Cannon Air Force Base,” Wilson’s spokeswoman Whitney Cheshire said. “And he has failed to produce that letter or retract his statement. Mr. Pearce’s new comment that he somehow received exclusive assurances about Cannon’s future from a Defense official back in 2005 seems highly suspect as well.”

Wilson called on Pearce to “disclose the name of the Department of Defense official who gave him those assurances, when those assurances were given, and explain why those assurances were not shared with the rest of the delegation and the people of New Mexico.” She said it was an “anxious time for the people of Clovis and Portales” when Cannon was included on the closure list.

“If Steve Pearce had some strong assurance from the Defense Department that could have eased people’s fears, surely he shouldn’t have kept that to himself,” she said.

Pearce’s response

The Pearce campaign sent a letter to supporters on Monday that cited an article published by the Albuquerque Journal.

In the Journal article, Phillips responded not by providing a copy of the alleged letter Pearce said the delegation signed, but instead by saying the five issued a joint news release in August 2005 titled “NM Delegation Accepts BRAC Decision to Create an Enclave at Cannon Air Force Base and Seek New Mission.”

That was two months before the House vote on the base closure and realignment plan. Phillips told the Journal that Wilson’s complaint that Pearce falsely said the entire delegation signed a letter is a “minute detail in a larger picture.”

Phillips also said that Wilson’s vote against the base closure plan, had the majority agreed with her, would have reopened the process and might have exposed other New Mexico bases to risk.

“The vote for BRAC was a vote to save Cannon, as well as all other New Mexico bases,” Phillips told the Journal.

That was the topic of the letter Pearce Campaign Manager John Billingsley sent out on Monday. It also focused on Tom Udall who, like Wilson, voted to reject the base closure plan.

“Read the article from today’s Albuquerque Journal and you will see that Tom Udall and Heather Wilson voted to put Cannon and all of our other important military bases at risk,” the letter states.

The August 2005 news release

It appears likely that Pearce’s claim that all five signed a letter asking for the mothballing of Cannon was wrong, because he has not produced such a letter despite requests.

And he has given differing statements to different audiences for his vote in favor of the plan that mothballed Cannon, but the statements weren’t necessarily contradictory. Perhaps he’s pandering by spinning his vote differently to different crowds, but the vote is still on the record. He can’t and isn’t trying to change that.

Pearce is right about the August 2005 news release. You can read it by clicking here. Two months before the House vote, all five members of New Mexico’s delegation informed the public of the base closure commission’s decision to mothball, instead of close, Cannon, and to attempt to find a new mission for it.

“Today is a partial victory,” Wilson said in the 2005 release. “We had the votes to keep Cannon open permanently if two people hadn’t recused themselves. Our job now is to begin to identify new missions, working with all the services and other government agencies. The people of Clovis and Portales did a fantastic job supporting Cannon. They convinced a majority of commissioners to keep it open permanently, and they deserve our thanks.”

“While I am disappointed that we fell one vote short of an unqualified victory, I am pleased that the BRAC Commission provided us with a fighting chance to prove that Cannon Air Force Base remains a vital component of America’s military preparedness,” Pearce said in the release. “The commission’s decision enables Cannon to compete for the military’s next generation of aircraft, as well as for numerous other possible missions. By continuing to highlight Cannon’s unparalleled attributes, I strongly believe that we can develop a vibrant new mission and a secure future for this vital component of our state’s social and economic fabric.”

The bottom line

Two months later, Pearce voted to uphold the BRAC recommendations, and Wilson and Udall voted against doing that. The majority of House members sided with Pearce, so the Senate never got to vote, but both senators from New Mexico said in news releases that they would have voted with Wilson and Udall.

The commission decided in August 2005 to direct the Department of Defense to attempt to find a new mission for Cannon. There was no promise then that one would be found. Pearce is now claiming that the DOD assured him a new mission would be found. Wilson’s question about why that wasn’t shared with the Cannon community is valid.

The bottom line: Pearce has clearly had some difficulty explaining his vote in a consistent manner, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he wasn’t doing what he thought was in the best interest of Cannon by voting to approve its enclave status. It’s clear from the 2005 news release that he and Wilson both considered the decision to mothball Cannon a partial but not full victory. Pearce decided that was good enough to vote for the BRAC plan. The others decided it was not good enough.