You can see the two of the pages of his arrest report below.
First, no one else has presented this information to the public — well, no one other than the Omaha Police Department. You will remember that Esch ran for Congress back in 2006. Was his arrest for driving drunk five years prior relevant in that campaign? Well, we’ll never know, as no one, primarily Esch, provided that information in any public forum (to our knowledge).
Should Jim Esch have provided this information when running for Congress? We think so.
When putting yourself up for a vote for one of the highest offices in the country, your background is important — especially if you do not have any other prior history to judge you by.
When Michael Scott ran for Congress as the Democrat nominee back in 1998, his history of drug use certainly was an issue in the campaign.
When State Senator Danielle Nantkes rammed into a snow plow and was arrested for drunk driving in Lincoln, it was a public issue, and will always be a point of consideration when she runs for re-election or for another office.
When Pat Flynn announced he was running for the Republican nomination to the U.S. Senate, one of the first things he did was discuss his prior arrests for drug possession. We kidded him for placing it so prominently in his announcement, but not for stating it. He was up-front, put it out for any consideration, and moved on to other issues.
Jim Esch never put it out front.
As a matter of fact, when the issue of drug use was introduced in the Democrat primary this year, Esch had a prime opportunity to level with the public about his past indiscretions. Esch instead laughed off a drug test with the line, “obviously I have nothing to hide“.
So, instead of getting out in front of the issue, Esch and his campaign followers will have to respond to it. But there is one other item Jim could provide, which we do not have.
The arrest report talks about a “D.U.I. supp”. This document, as we understand it, is the record of Esch’s field sobriety test. We are told that in order to procure this, a subpoena must be filed. Or Esch could simply provide it to the press. We are wondering what this document says. In how bad of shape did the officer observe Esch to be? Was Esch combative with the officer? What was said?
Providing this document would allow Esch to show that he is willing to take some responsibility for this, even at this point. Otherwise, frankly, it’s just more stonewalling.
And one of the questions at the end of all this is, does a DUI seven years ago matter?
We’re not sure. To some people it may. Did Esch’s behavior change after that incident? Did he take steps to address his problem then?
But Esch clearly didn’t level with the public when he ran back in 2006. When he had the chance in this year’s primary, he didn’t level with the public.
There is little else by which to judge Jim Esch.
Except his Record.
After reviewing a 4/25/08 OWH article, Esch did finally admit this year to drunk driving. The article however did not note that he blew over twice the legal limit. And we await the information from the D.U.I supplemental report…