Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ASA HUTCHINSON SAYS NO RUN FOR SENATE PLANNED
Associated Press | April 30, 2003

Posted on 04/30/2003 7:53:49 PM PDT by HAL9000

ASA HUTCHINSON SAYS NO RUN FOR SENATE PLANNED

The former Republican congressman says a Roll Call newspaper report that he would run against Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln was inaccurate.

The Roll Call story cited Republican sources as saying Hutchinson would run if the White House asked. He twice declined to answer the question today, saying his commitment is to his current Homeland Security job.

State Republican Party Director Marty Ryall said last week that Hutchinson is still "on the short list," along with Governor Huckabee, to challenge Lincoln. Huckabee has said he is tied up with work on state issues and has not had time to weigh a bid against Lincoln.

Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.



TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas
KEYWORDS: asahutchinson; blanchelincoln; huckabee; hutchinson; lincoln; senate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

1 posted on 04/30/2003 7:53:49 PM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HAL9000; fieldmarshaldj; LdSentinal; AuH2ORepublican; zebrahead; JohnnyZ; Theodore R.
Lincoln's chances of re-election look brighter and brighter each day. The voting rights of the people of AR are being violated. Hopefully Asa Hutchinson might run for AR Governor in 2006.
2 posted on 04/30/2003 8:00:30 PM PDT by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
Lincoln's chances of re-election look brighter and brighter each day

Yep, Huckabee will be no help.
3 posted on 04/30/2003 8:10:23 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
If Huckabee gets a budget passed in the special session that funds Medicaid, he will be a strong candidate against Lincoln.
4 posted on 04/30/2003 8:16:58 PM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
I suspect Mike Huckabee shall retire from politics after 2006. He would most likely be teaching at Ouachita Baptist universitywhen he is done with the Governorship.
5 posted on 04/30/2003 8:18:58 PM PDT by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
If Huckabee gets a budget passed in the special session that funds Medicaid, he will be a strong candidate against Lincoln.

Not without a base. The school consolidation thing didn't do him one bit of good, nor did abandoning his "Tax Me More" joke and turning it into reality.

The school consolidation plan would turn local school boards into advisory committees with the real power moved to the Dept. of Education in Little Rock. The NEA likes that, I don't. As bad as school boards are we can at least unelect them. The bureaucrats in Little Rock we cannot touch. The NEA gets one stop lobbying rather than having to deal with a multitude of school boards. Conservatives believe in local control, not centralized control.

When the tax thing came up I wrote him a letter asking why the State did not cut itself down to a level it could afford rather than raise taxes ("Tax Me More"). I got a note back listing all the government programs we would lose if taxes were not raised. DHS workers do work very hard, sometimes they drive 900 miles a day in our little state. But I think we can scale back on their travel for a while rather than try to tax ourselves into prosperity during a bad economy. He says its for the children and old folks though and thats always a plus.

Some folks are very disappointed about all this. I am one. I seriously doubt that Democratic voters will be impressed either. Why vote for a Republican just because he acts like a Democrat when you can vote for the real thing. We need tax cuts and reduced spending, not tax increases.
6 posted on 04/30/2003 8:27:45 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
You are right. Huckabee is more of a Stephens Bros. Democrat than a Republican.
7 posted on 04/30/2003 8:29:10 PM PDT by Arkansawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
I suspect Mike Huckabee shall retire from politics after 2006. He would most likely be teaching at Ouachita Baptist universitywhen he is done with the Governorship.

All this time with a Republican governor and we still have a sales tax on groceries. We still have a state income tax dragging us down. We are talking about taking power from local school boards and moving it to Little Rock. Time's up.

We have a special exemption for Texarkana, AR on the state income tax because businesses always choose to locate across the street in Texarkana, TX because they have no state income tax and we do. My question is, what about those of us who do not live in Texarkana? Do they think business will choose us non-Texarkanans over Texas? If the state income tax is so obviously bad for Texarkana then how would it be good for the rest of us? The problem was that it was so OBVIOUS in Texarkana. But no effort was made to take that ball and chain off us and very little effort on taking the tax off of our FOOD either.

Makes no sense.
8 posted on 04/30/2003 8:33:33 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
All this time with a Republican governor and we still have a sales tax on groceries.

The voters decided not to abolish that tax in the last general election. The legislature refuses to act on it. Not Huckabee's fault.

We are talking about taking power from local school boards and moving it to Little Rock.

Except for the Lake View case, I believe the actual plan was to consolidate some of the smallest disticts into larger ones - e.g. merging the Garnett and Tyro districts into a single one. We don't need a separate school district for every intersection. There are too many districts to be funded and operated efficiently, and Huckabee had a sensible plan for dealing with the problem. If some underutilized superintendents have to find work elsewhere, that would be an improvement.

9 posted on 04/30/2003 9:14:56 PM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
The voters decided not to abolish that tax in the last general election. The legislature refuses to act on it. Not Huckabee's fault.

The governorship in Arkansas is relatively powerless. The governor has to use the bully pulpit. The governor did not use the bully pulpit in regard to the food tax. His agencies bemoaned the loss of funds publicly.

Except for the Lake View case, I believe the actual plan was to consolidate some of the smallest disticts into larger ones - e.g. merging the Garnett and Tyro districts into a single one. We don't need a separate school district for every intersection. There are too many districts to be funded and operated efficiently, and Huckabee had a sensible plan for dealing with the problem. If some underutilized superintendents have to find work elsewhere, that would be an improvement.

I didn't say anything about consolidating shrimp sized districts. What I complained about were the parts of the plan that emasculated the local school boards and increased power for the Dept. of Education bureaucrats. That is not a conservative plan and its unacceptable. When the NEA said that they favored it very early on I immediately knew it was a bad deal. Of course the NEA would like bureaucrats in Little Rock to be in control. One stop lobbying of unelected officials.
10 posted on 04/30/2003 9:25:08 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
Lincoln should put Huckabee on
her reelection committe
no one helping her and must as
him.
11 posted on 04/30/2003 9:48:04 PM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arkansawyer
Have the Stephens brothers being
giving money to Huckabee?

They operate in both parties you know?
And if they have would explain a lot.
12 posted on 04/30/2003 9:49:59 PM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Princeliberty
No one is elected Gov. of Arkansas without Stephens approval. Who issued the bonds for the highway improvement plan the Gov did?
13 posted on 05/01/2003 4:19:31 AM PDT by Arkansawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
Asa probably thinks that Tim, a big loser in 2002, has killed Asa's political chances as well. Democrat AR is just not as enamored with the Hutchinson brothers as say Democrat MA is (was) with the Kennedy brothers.

As usual, it looks like the AR GOP will "take a pass" on a difficult race.
14 posted on 05/01/2003 5:22:50 AM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
The former Republican congressman says a Roll Call newspaper report that he would run against Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln was inaccurate.

The Roll Call story cited Republican sources as saying Hutchinson would run if the White House asked. He twice declined to answer the question today, saying his commitment is to his current Homeland Security job.

Is the AP title misleading? It looks like he didn't address whether he WOULD consider running for senate. He denied the story that said he told the White House he would run if they wanted. Then refused to go into it further.

An actual transcript, or quotes, would have been nice, but maybe the AP isn't the "we report, you decide" news organization I thought it was (sic).

15 posted on 05/01/2003 6:33:31 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (You can quote me on that, but I'll deny it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ; Kuksool; HAL9000; Arkinsaw
I agree with JohnnyZ, the article doesn't say that Asa has decided not to run. But why would Asa deny this rumor at this early stage? Could he be worried that some may say that he's too distracted by a potential Senate run to do a good job at DEA? If so, maybe he hasn't forgone running and is waiting for a more appropriate time to express interest, but I have to admit I don't get a good feeling from this.

As for Huckabee, even if he's got all the negative attributes you all say he has, he would still have a good chance of defeating Lincoln. And what about Lt. Gov. Win Rockefeller? Could he beat Lincoln?
16 posted on 05/01/2003 6:56:30 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool; JohnnyZ
I still have to wonder about this. I'm not entirely convinced that Asa is out of the race. Huckabee I don't think will be able to get past 45% of the vote if he runs next year, and for all we know, he himself might decide against running. Perhaps one interesting candidate we could get in would be Lt. Gov. Win Paul Rockefeller, who would be able to fund his own campaign (but he'd have to do something about his abortion stance), or perhaps Congressman John Boozman.
17 posted on 05/01/2003 7:01:12 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~Remember, it's not sporting to fire at RINO until charging~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
You and I seem to be thinking alike here on Win Paul. :-)
18 posted on 05/01/2003 7:01:55 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~Remember, it's not sporting to fire at RINO until charging~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
If George W. Bush asks Asa to run, he will run. I don't care what the AP says.
19 posted on 05/01/2003 7:03:15 AM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
"perhaps Congressman John Boozman"


I fear that Boozman would carry NW Arkansas and lose because Lincoln would carry the rest of the state. We need a candidate who can fight Lincoln to a draw in Snyder's and Ross's districts (in which Bush got like 47% in 2000), get at least 45% in Berry's district (in which Bush got 49%, but which Lincoln used to represent) and get over 60% in Boozman's district (formerly held by both Tom and Asa Hutchinson). For that, we need someone with state-wide name ID and appeal. Arkansans won't vote for someone they don't know.
20 posted on 05/01/2003 7:32:37 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
"You and I seem to be thinking alike here on Win Paul. :-)"


If he's pro-abortion, I don't think he can win. Republicans have enough of a hard time winning in Arkansas without driving away the conservative Dems we need to attract in order to win.
21 posted on 05/01/2003 7:36:36 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
What about Gunner DeLay? Could he be the kind of hard charger that could put together a strong campaign and cultivate a populist image in Arkansas?
22 posted on 05/01/2003 7:44:12 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (You can quote me on that, but I'll deny it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
"What about Gunner DeLay?"


Don't know enough about him. What can you tell me?
23 posted on 05/01/2003 7:50:55 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
State rep, I think. Generally favorable impression, but not much real info.
24 posted on 05/01/2003 7:52:42 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (You can quote me on that, but I'll deny it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
Remember that Tim Hutchinson used that same House seat as a base to win statewide in '96 against a statewide officeholder, although he had the advantage of running for a rare open seat. We already face a serious disadvantage with a lack of Republicans with statewide name ID, only Huckabee, Win Paul, the Hutchinsons and the Boozmans (John's brother Fay ran against Blanche in '98, but he made a terrible Clayton Williams-style gaffe that might've gone a long way into costing us the seat) are fairly well-known.
25 posted on 05/01/2003 7:59:12 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~Remember, it's not sporting to fire at RINO until charging~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
"If he's pro-abortion, I don't think he can win."

That's the question, can we get him to convert ? If we can, I think he'd be a strong candidate.

26 posted on 05/01/2003 8:00:44 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~Remember, it's not sporting to fire at RINO until charging~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
And what about Lt. Gov. Win Rockefeller? Could he beat Lincoln?

Maybe, but he is too nice a guy and too honorable a campaigner. Some down and dirty would be required and not sure he would do anything but take the high road. Who knows, that might work. But it would be a flukey campaign for sure.
27 posted on 05/01/2003 8:03:41 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
If he's pro-abortion, I don't think he can win.

If Bumpers and Pryor can win with that stance then its really not that big of a factor in Arkansas. But Rockefeller isn't a real politician in many ways and I'm afraid he would have trouble when the campaign turned nasty, which it always does. Can taking the high road win these days?
28 posted on 05/01/2003 8:07:00 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: All
"I was distressed with the Roll Call story because it was inaccurate and gave the impression I was somehow seeking this," Hutchinson said after arriving at Little Rock National Airport. He is scheduled for two public appearances in Little Rock on today.

http://www.baxterbulletin.com/news/stories/20030501/localnews/216786.html

29 posted on 05/01/2003 8:13:21 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (You can quote me on that, but I'll deny it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
if Bumpers and Pryor can win with pro-choice...

they're both DEMS...Dem's can win with that. In Arkansas basically forget about a Repub winning like that.
30 posted on 05/01/2003 8:18:29 AM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ; AuH2ORepublican
I needed to go to my archives regarding State Sen. Gunner DeLay (not State Rep.), and he is an interesting character to say the least. DeLay is a distant cousin of Tom's, BTW, and has the same deft touch as "The Hammer." I recalled his participation in the rip-roaring special primary contest to replace Asa Hutchinson right about the time of 9/11/2001.

The 3-way contest was between John Boozman, Jim Hendren (a nephew of the Hutchinsons and leader of the anti-Huckabee legislative faction) and DeLay. When it started out, Hendren was expected to be "coronated" (and DeLay wasn't even going to run), but then came the revelation that Hendren had had an adulterous affair, and DeLay jumped into the race. Because Boozman was the "moderate" (but still Conservative) in the race, it caused a split, and DeLay came in 2nd and Hendren in 3rd. The problem was that DeLay took a hostile stance on immigration that could create serious problems for the GOP in the most-Hispanic district in the state and it was one reason why I ultimately supported Boozman over DeLay. You may be interested in this piece on DeLay from that time:


The saga of Gunner and Jim

By John Brummett
September 28, 2001

On May 10 I was in Fort Smith having lunch at a diner off Rogers Avenue with state Sen. Gunner DeLay, an eminently boyish, likable and flame-throwing Republican.

Gunner is so ambidextrous that he could at once be supported by organized labor - since he is a workers' rights champion in his little law practice as well as his legislative voting record - and Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, which was seeking to impose Christian fundamentalism on public policy long before imposing Christian fundamentalism on public policy became an epidemic.

I asked Gunner if he might run for the new congressional vacancy in the 3rd District - the one to arise from Asa Hutchinson's moving on to head the Drug Enforcement Administration.

He exploded, and I don't mean in the angry way. I mean in the loud, boisterous, effusive way.

Man, he asked, where had I been? How could I hang around state government and even think he'd run against Jim Hendren, the scion of the Hutchinson clan, the jet fighter pilot, the former leader of conservative, anti-Huckabee Republicans in the Legislature? For goodness sakes, Gunner bellowed, he and Jim were best friends. Their families took vacations together.

But he said that if Hendren for some reason didn't run, he'd be in that congressional race in a heartbeat.

A couple of days later Hendren took himself out of the race, cowed because of an unspecified rumor about his personal life that he had reason to believe the Huckabee forces would use against him. Gunner, true to his word, promptly got in. A few days after that, Hendren declared himself no longer afraid. He would run anyway. Let it all come out. (It did; it was an adulterous affair.)

Gunner was highly peeved, and he is not known for emotion modulation. Hendren had toyed with him and treated him rudely, and now, by golly, he would just stay in the race.

I kept thinking he'd back out; that Hendren would assuage his anger and resentment; that he'd use the aborted candidacy to build name identification for a lesser campaign. One day I asked when he intended to stop this nonsense. He said it wouldn't be the next day, since he intended to make his formal announcement then.

Gunner demagogued on immigration, then benefited when it turned out that the terror in New York and Washington was committed by fellows crossing the Canadian border and overstaying their visas.

The phone rang one day and it was state Rep. Randy Minton from Ward, over near Cabot, the smiling, irrepressible, eminently likable, thoroughly frightful gun nut. He filed all those bills to allow guns to be carried into restaurants and school bus stops. He invited me to come over to the country club in Cabot for the fund-raiser he was having for his colleague running for Congress in the 3rd District. Hendren, of course? No, he said. It was Gunner DeLay.

I asked why. He said he liked Hendren, but that Hendren didn't do Gunner right by getting out and then getting back in.

I now know there was something else. Late in the campaign, DeLay sent out a flyer to NRA members telling them Hendren didn't trust them with their guns. He cited Hendren's vote against allowing the carrying of a concealed weapon.

Hendren thought the five hours of required training insufficient. An ace shot himself from extensive military training, he knew enough about firearms to fear them in the concealed custody of every untrained Joe Six-Pack tooling down the highway in a pickup.

That flyer, I suspect, hurt Hendren far more than adultery.

Lo and behold, it was Gunner DeLay, not Jim Hendren, who got up to second place Tuesday night to enter a runoff with the Huckabee candidate, John Boozman, for the Republican nomination.

Gunner and Jim are supposed to get together in the next day or two to see if that friendship could be revived. It'll be interesting. Gunner in Congress would be a real hoot.



John Brummett is a columnist and reporter for Donrey News in Little Rock. Read all of Donrey's Capitol coverage at www.donreynews.com
31 posted on 05/01/2003 8:34:22 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~Remember, it's not sporting to fire at RINO until charging~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw; fieldmarshaldj
"If Bumpers and Pryor can win with that stance then its really not that big of a factor in Arkansas."


A Democrat can win in Arkansas even if he's not anti-abortion, but it would be nearly impossible for a pro-abortion Republican to win. The RATs start off with a huge registration advantage, and traditionally get over 90% of the black vote no matter what. For a Republican to win, he has to carry economic conservatives (which are a minority in Arkansas) and get a fairly large percentage of social conservatives who are attracted to economic populism to come over from the Democratic side. Thus, if a Republican in Arkansas is pro-abortion, he will never beat an incumbent Senator like Blanche Lincoln (who is also pro-abortion but hides it by voting for the partial-birth ban), since Lincoln's promise of more pork will keep Democrats happy and there won't be many compelling social issues to get Democrats to jump to the GOP candidate.
32 posted on 05/01/2003 8:49:10 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: votelife
they're both DEMS...Dem's can win with that. In Arkansas basically forget about a Repub winning like that.

I can't say that its ever been tried so I'm not sure that it will be that big of a factor. He's already won a statewide election for Lt. Governor with that position and its unlikely that Blanche Lincoln would attempt to make it an issue. She is certainly not going to run on it.

Win Paul's father was not particularly a social conservative, at least by Arkansas standards. He won by pulling over reform Democrats. I would think that his father's campaign would be about the only model to go by.
33 posted on 05/01/2003 9:39:58 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
you may be right but let me point out two things.

1. The filibustering Senate where NOW and NARAL are calling judicial filibusters. This WILL be a campaign issue, even if the candidates don't want to talk about it.

2. the abortion issue isn't exactly paramount for Lt. Gov of arkansas. But US Senators confirm or filibuster Bush's Supreme Court picks. So I think the Republican most likely will HAVE to be pro-life to get elected.
34 posted on 05/01/2003 9:47:48 AM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: votelife
I think you are right on number one and I think a Win Rockefeller campaign wouldn't be shy about pointing that out regularly. I suspect his campaign would make it more on a Constitutional/Good government (reform) versus Washington Partisanship issue. I don't think his campaign would focus on the specifics of who was blocking them (other than Blanche, Democrats, and generic special interests).

Similarly, on number two, I think when you have two candidates with similar positions they are not going to highlight those issues, there will just be no traction there for either. Rockefeller can point out the judicial problem on a "good government" basis and really tag her without reference to the abortion issue. She might try to defend with abortion (I doubt it), but he can just come back and shrug off her defense because his position is well known. He might even point out her defense as an "over concern" on that issue. He can play the moderate to her extremist if she tries it.

He might be a good candidate for a couple of reasons. One, he has a pretty good relationship with the African-Americans in the east, especially with economic development in that area. They won't vote for him, but it would probably supress their turnout and based on his father's legacy he would campaign over there and not give them up for lost.

He nullifies the abortion issue as stated above.

He has his father's legacy and that is a good one even for Democrats.

He has taken the high road in his campaigns and is respected.

He won't embarass Arkansans, and that is a bigger factor than many think.

Who knows, you might see a campaign where Blanche focuses on her support for the NRA as she tries to get right of Rockefeller. LOL. It would be one of the most interesting campaigns in a long time.
35 posted on 05/01/2003 10:08:12 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Do you think Asa Hutchinson can win? I do. He already has one statewide run under his belt (a run against Dale Bumper in 1986) and he did better than most Republicans running against entrenched democrats in that awful year. Plus, he can count on the full backing of the White House.
36 posted on 05/01/2003 10:31:24 AM PDT by MainstreamConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
The added plus if Win Paul loses in a particularly nasty contest on the part of Blanche after running a classy one, he'll likely still be in the catbirds' seat to retain the governorship for the GOP if Huckabee retires in '06.
37 posted on 05/01/2003 10:44:39 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~Remember, it's not sporting to fire at RINO until charging~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
"He nullifies the abortion issue as stated above."


It's not a question of nullifying the issue; Lincoln isn't any more pro-life than he is. The point is that, all things being equal, the incumbent Democrat will defeat the challenging Republican unless the Republican gets socially conservative Democrats to vote for him. In Arkansas and the rest of the South, you do this with abortion, guns and school prayer. I hope you're right about "reform-minded Democrats" being a large constituency that can deliver victory for Rockefeller, but I don't think the issue will get much traction. This ain't the 1960s, and Lincoln is not an old corrupt Democrat party boss---she's an attractive mother of twins who will have to get beat on the type of issues that Bush used to beat Gore in Arkansas.
38 posted on 05/01/2003 10:44:58 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MainstreamConservative
"Do you think Asa Hutchinson can win? I do. He already has one statewide run under his belt (a run against Dale Bumper in 1986) and he did better than most Republicans running against entrenched democrats in that awful year. Plus, he can count on the full backing of the White House."

Actually, he received the lowest % of any Republican running in AR since 1968 save the two non-candidates that ran in '74 & '78, a paltry 37%. Comparing him nationwide, he was, I was surprised to learn, in the bottom 7 worst GOP-performing candidates in '86 (only Roger Eddy (CT), a sacrifical lamb in HI (also named Hutchinson) and candidates in IL, KY, SC, VT (the last against a popular recently-departed GOP Governor !) did worse). We actually didn't do as bad as it appeared in '86 (most of our candidates received above Hutchinson's 37%), just that we lost so many close races (and came close in picking up potential 'Rat seats) with the upset winners of 1980.

39 posted on 05/01/2003 11:00:51 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~Remember, it's not sporting to fire at RINO until charging~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Arkansawyer
Do you realize the Stephens brothers are
close friends with the Bush family?

40 posted on 05/01/2003 11:45:06 AM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Arkansawyer
Do you know of any interesting articles
on the Stephen borther dominance of
both parties in Arkansas? Or
anything like that I could pass
along to other interested persons.
41 posted on 05/01/2003 11:47:39 AM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
What I was saying was that he did OK running against a guy who was hugely popular. As to 1986, the only democrat seat we won was that of Thomas Eagleton in Missouri, whom Kit Bond replaced after defeating the lieutenatnt governor (I can't remember her name). 1986 was a year where we had many flukes that could not survive against a serious challenge. The one upset I remember was that of Sen. Mark Andrews (R-ND) losing to Kent Conrad. No one had expected that. The democrats also had a great GOTV organization going. My point is is that Asa Hutchinson did fairly well considering Arkansas was (and still is on the local level) a heavily democratic state. He certainly did better than the guy who got 15 percent against Bumpers in 1974. But just remember that Bumpers was hugely popular.

On an unrelated matter, exactly who ran against Harry Reid in Nevada in 1986 (and why did he lose)?
42 posted on 05/01/2003 1:49:22 PM PDT by MainstreamConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MainstreamConservative
"What I was saying was that he did OK running against a guy who was hugely popular."

I just personally wasn't particularly impressed with that margin. Bill Clark running in '80 (41%) and Huckabee running in '92 (40%) outpaced Hutchinson both against Bumpers. David Pryor was also similarly popular, and Ed Bethune (the lone Republican ever elected from the Little Rock district, not including the party switcher Tommy Robinson) did the best of all in '84 (43%) until Tim Hutchinson's win. I'm sure Asa could do far better this time, though I wonder how many would get him confused with his brother (and as already stated, both Tim and nephew Jim Hedren were befallen by marital problems) and would cost him votes. Ironically, yet another Hutchinson, Jeremy (who's the same age I am, about 29), is a State Rep. from Little Rock, and could be a potential Congressman from that area within the next 10 years.

"As to 1986, the only democrat seat we won was that of Thomas Eagleton in Missouri, whom Kit Bond replaced after defeating the lieutenatnt governor (I can't remember her name)."

Harriett Woods. We almost nearly picked up Gary Hart's seat in CO with Congressman Ken Kramer, who lost only 51-49%. If Kramer had won, Ben Nighthorse Campbell would never have been elected in '92. We also nearly brought down Alan Cranston in CA, who won by only 1.6%.

"1986 was a year where we had many flukes that could not survive against a serious challenge. The one upset I remember was that of Sen. Mark Andrews (R-ND) losing to Kent Conrad. No one had expected that. The democrats also had a great GOTV organization going."

We always tended to be at a disadvantage since we didn't get serious with fundraising or GOTV until the '90s (at least in regards to retaining what we had) which was about the most vital to holding marginal seats. Places like AL, GA, LA, NV, ND, and SD (along with CA & CO) were inexcusable losses. Regarding Andrews, who also suffered from similar problems that Abdnor in SD did and also Jepsen in IA ('84) over the farming downturn, although strangely it escaped punishing Chuck Grassley, who won by a 2-1 margin which probably should've been much closer.

"My point is is that Asa Hutchinson did fairly well considering Arkansas was (and still is on the local level) a heavily democratic state. He certainly did better than the guy who got 15 percent against Bumpers in 1974. But just remember that Bumpers was hugely popular."

But those candidates in '74 & '78 were not considered anything more than sacrificial lambs (both spent only $16k and $18k each, outspent by roughly 20-to-1). Even the candidates we ran from '62-'72 all got between 31-41% of the vote (it also shows that Watergate caused considerable damage in the emerging GOP in the South, we had all our hard-fought gains in the '60s and early '70s wiped away here in TN between '74 and continuing until about '76-'78, which was the absolute nadir, and held about the same at the Congressional level for the next 20 years).

"On an unrelated matter, exactly who ran against Harry Reid in Nevada in 1986 (and why did he lose)?"

Ah, yes. That would be Jim Santini. Santini had been a Conservative Dem. Congressman At-Large (the sole House member at the time) from 1975-83. Santini had tried to knock off the troubled Howard Cannon in the Dem. primary of '82, but Cannon narrowly won, though was so badly damaged, lost to the incredibly unimpressive Chic Hecht (who was literally a textbook definition of a one-termer, a nice man, but no real politician) in the general. When Paul Laxalt retired (and along with his and Howard Baker 2 years earlier, retirements that were utterly needless and quite costly to us), Santini switched parties almost immediately upon Laxalt's announcement. Harry Reid slammed him hard on this saying it was nothing but opportunism and not particularly principled (although Santini's ACU rating rose from about 47% Conservative in '75 to about 86% in '81, so he obviously was no liberal), and also crafted hard-hitting ads (if the GOP had made them, they would've been called "mean-spirited") that wondered how this newly-christened Laxalt Republican had no problems saving Tip O'Neill's limo or his absenteeism in his final year in the House (while the limo vote was inexcusable, having to campaign in a very difficult Senate race so far away from DC would mean he would miss votes !). Reid tried essentially running to the "right" of Santini as a "principled Mormon" (though Santini's voting record was still twice as Conservative as Reid's), and it paid off. If we can lure Jim Gibbons out of his House seat, I think we'll finally take down Reid next year.

43 posted on 05/01/2003 3:08:41 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~Remember, it's not sporting to fire at RINO until charging~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
"I just personally wasn't particularly impressed with that margin. Bill Clark running in '80 (41%) and Huckabee running in '92 (40%) outpaced Hutchinson both against Bumpers. David Pryor was also similarly popular, and Ed Bethune (the lone Republican ever elected from the Little Rock district, not including the party switcher Tommy Robinson) did the best of all in '84 (43%) until Tim Hutchinson's win. I'm sure Asa could do far better this time, though I wonder how many would get him confused with his brother (and as already stated, both Tim and nephew Jim Hedren were befallen by marital problems) and would cost him votes. Ironically, yet another Hutchinson, Jeremy (who's the same age I am, about 29), is a State Rep. from Little Rock, and could be a potential Congressman from that area within the next 10 years."

I see your point. I remember that Pryor was targeted in 1984 and Bethune was the man responsible for bringing him down. Was Asa Hutchinson a sacrificial lamb, by the way?

"Harriett Woods. We almost nearly picked up Gary Hart's seat in CO with Congressman Ken Kramer, who lost only 51-49%. If Kramer had won, Ben Nighthorse Campbell would never have been elected in '92. We also nearly brought down Alan Cranston in CA, who won by only 1.6%."


What I never understand was how a liberal like Tim Wirth could get elected in a conservative state like Colorado, although it was less Republican back then. Going way back, was Peter Dominick defeated by more than twenty points solely because of Watergate, or did he screw up? I remember Hart having a close race with Mary Buchanan in 1980. As to Cranston, why did he have such a close race? I looked up the election results archive for US Senate and he always won fairly easily, except in 1986.

"We always tended to be at a disadvantage since we didn't get serious with fundraising or GOTV until the '90s (at least in regards to retaining what we had) which was about the most vital to holding marginal seats. Places like AL, GA, LA, NV, ND, and SD (along with CA & CO) were inexcusable losses. Regarding Andrews, who also suffered from similar problems that Abdnor in SD did and also Jepsen in IA ('84) over the farming downturn, although strangely it escaped punishing Chuck Grassley, who won by a 2-1 margin which probably should've been much closer."

I thought that Jepsen lost to Harkin because of scandal. Something about him going to some spa which turned out to be a whore house. Maybe you could elaborate. As to Grassley, he has always seemed to project the image of a guy working for his constituents, as opposed to being an ideolouge like Harkin. I agree that SD and ND were inexcusible losses. However, Mattingly was vulnerable in Georgia, his elcetion had to mainly with a huge turnout in the Atlanta suburbs and the scandals surrounding Herman Talmadge. It's a darn shame Denton lost in Alabama, the man was a true patriot. I'm not so sure how LA was an inexcusible loss. Again, maybe you could elaborate, because I never really watched that race.

"Ah, yes. That would be Jim Santini. Santini had been a Conservative Dem. Congressman At-Large (the sole House member at the time) from 1975-83. Santini had tried to knock off the troubled Howard Cannon in the Dem. primary of '82, but Cannon narrowly won, though was so badly damaged, lost to the incredibly unimpressive Chic Hecht (who was literally a textbook definition of a one-termer, a nice man, but no real politician) in the general. When Paul Laxalt retired (and along with his and Howard Baker 2 years earlier, retirements that were utterly needless and quite costly to us), Santini switched parties almost immediately upon Laxalt's announcement. Harry Reid slammed him hard on this saying it was nothing but opportunism and not particularly principled (although Santini's ACU rating rose from about 47% Conservative in '75 to about 86% in '81, so he obviously was no liberal), and also crafted hard-hitting ads (if the GOP had made them, they would've been called "mean-spirited") that wondered how this newly-christened Laxalt Republican had no problems saving Tip O'Neill's limo or his absenteeism in his final year in the House (while the limo vote was inexcusable, having to campaign in a very difficult Senate race so far away from DC would mean he would miss votes !). Reid tried essentially running to the "right" of Santini as a "principled Mormon" (though Santini's voting record was still twice as Conservative as Reid's), and it paid off. If we can lure Jim Gibbons out of his House seat, I think we'll finally take down Reid next year."

Thanks for the info!

Before I leave, you seem to be incredibly well informed regarding past races. Is there some archive I could look at that has this kind of information? Thanks.
44 posted on 05/01/2003 3:43:54 PM PDT by MainstreamConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; MainstreamConservative; Arkinsaw
Asa Hutchinson was one of the House impeachment managers in 1999. Would AR voters see Hutchinson in a negative light for going after AR's homeboy?
45 posted on 05/01/2003 5:43:07 PM PDT by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
Asa Hutchinson was one of the House impeachment managers in 1999. Would AR voters see Hutchinson in a negative light for going after AR's homeboy?

No, Clinton is sort of like a tornado that blew through here. Only the yellow dogs still think of Clinton. That tornado has moved on to New York.
46 posted on 05/01/2003 6:21:06 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw; Arkansawyer
Would you consider joining with us (Constitution Party- www.cparkansas.org ) if we found a credible candidate for this race?
47 posted on 05/01/2003 6:38:34 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MainstreamConservative
"I see your point. I remember that Pryor was targeted in 1984 and Bethune was the man responsible for bringing him down. Was Asa Hutchinson a sacrificial lamb, by the way?"

I would say he wasn't. He was considered a decent candidate, and had cut a swath up to that point serving as US Attorney for Western AR (resigning in order to run for the Senate). He also spent nearly $1 million (to Bumpers' $1.7 million) in that race, too. It sharply contrasted to the paltry $100k+ that Bill Clark spent in '80 against Bumpers' $200k+ (one reason Clark did so well was because the Fort Chaffee incident negatively impacted on Bumpers, and also helped defeat Clinton after one term as Governor). I wonder if Clark had had that same amount in '80 if he could've taken down Bumpers ?

"What I never understand was how a liberal like Tim Wirth could get elected in a conservative state like Colorado, although it was less Republican back then."

Wirth was pegged as an economic Conservative and it was considered a very evenly-divided race, but would you believe that as with Abdnor & Andrews, it was the farming downturn that cost Kramer those badly-needed votes that would've put him over the top. People sometimes forget that the Eastern half of CO is little different than the Dakotas or other Plains states with the issues most important to them (that being farming).

"Going way back, was Peter Dominick defeated by more than twenty points solely because of Watergate, or did he screw up?"

Dominick was plagued by a number of problems, Watergate being one, but it started off with his health. He had suffered a heart attack and you could tell from his speech, and as a result, couldn't campaign as vigorously as he once did. At that time in the early '70s, the 'Rats were very much in ascendence in CO and they appeared to be on the verge of converting it into a Massachusetts of the Rockies. Hart was a very attractive candidate who had run in the middle ground between an ultraleftist and a moderate Dem in the primary and just simply was able to outmanuever Dominick, who kept downplaying Watergate and making gaffe after gaffe. As you know, CO had unceremoniously dumped Gordon Allott in '72 (almost a precursor to where the country was headed despite the Nixon landslide). Fortunately, '74 was the high-water mark for the 'Rats in CO and the state started to figure out what the new guys were selling was far worse than the product the "old Conservatives" were pushing (albeit they still stuck with the same knuckleheads for 24 straight years in the Governor's office).

"I remember Hart having a close race with Mary Buchanan in 1980."

Hart should've lost, but the GOP badly bungled the primary. Buchanan's goal had only been to get on the ballot, and she won the primary in a split (she was a "moderate", and did little to inspire the GOP base (as Bill Armstrong had in '78 when he deposed Floyd Haskell by the same margin Hart had prevailed over Dominick)). Had Bo Callaway, the former GA Congressman (the first GOPer since Reconstruction) and the man who was denied the Governorship in '66 of that state (despite getting more votes than Lester Maddox), gotten the nomination, he probably could've beaten Hart by a slim margin. There's often a reason why so many pols that start to become unpopular in their state run for President, so that they can avoid being unceremoniously dumped for reelection. That was why Hart decided not to run again in '86, since if he had, he probably would've been defeated by Ken Kramer.

"As to Cranston, why did he have such a close race? I looked up the election results archive for US Senate and he always won fairly easily, except in 1986."

Well, that and '68 against Max Rafferty (who had knocked off the liberal RINO Sen. Tom Kuchel). Cranston was getting old (72), about the oldest person running for reelection in CA history to the Senate (only William Gibbs McAdoo and Hiram Johnson were older (74), but McAdoo was defeated and Johnson was returned, but went on to die in that term at 78, the same age that Cranston was when he left office in '93), and that was a mark against him (he didn't look well) and was regarded as out-of-touch, and lastly was his dreadful attempt to run for President in '84 which cast him in an even more negative light standing against everything that Reagan was for. Congressman Ed Zschau was a Social liberal, but more (as they say) a "fit" for the state. Cranston ran a very negative campaign, and Zschau was forced to respond in kind, however forgetting to put forth a positive message of his own at the end, and that made the difference for Cranston (largely because they drove down the % of voters, and Zschau's own performance in his home area was subpar and he also failed to fully invigorate the Conservative base that only nominally supported him). Zschau, sadly, has sort of set the model since '86 of our running potentially good but ultimately losing and muddled campaigns on behalf of the GOP (only Bruce Hershensohn in '92 running against the evil Boxer or all the money that Mike Huffington was able to use in '94, were able to do better). Hopefully we'll get our act together out there next year, but I'm not holding my breath. CA is a cesspool now, and the reason why CO didn't permanently fall to the 'Rats was because so many California Republicans moved there en masse since the '70s.

"I thought that Jepsen lost to Harkin because of scandal. Something about him going to some spa which turned out to be a whore house. Maybe you could elaborate."

There were a number of reasons Jepsen lost, although strangely enough, he actually had a fairly decent approval rating of something like 60% from what I understood. The massage parlor was one thing, but also his looking a bit arrogant, foolish, and hypocritical on this and other things (projecting an aura of deep conservatism and morality, it was hard to explain away why the parlor, why the traffic infractions, and why even a stance on abortion, which he had approved of back in the legislature, had somehow changed without fully explaining why -- and he often had to do a lot of explaining). He also didn't tend to the issues Iowans wanted of him and it was largely why he was rejected. On second review of Jepsen, I had forgotten just how crippled he was going into '84, and wondered why the state GOP didn't try to remove him in the primary (in the case of Janklow challenging Abdnor in SD in '86, this was where someone truly needed to challenge Jepsen, like ex-Gov. Bob Ray, who probably could've done that and prevailed against Harkin).

"As to Grassley, he has always seemed to project the image of a guy working for his constituents, as opposed to being an ideolouge like Harkin."

Yup, and is why he has been the most popular pol in the state for the past 20 years. It's too bad we couldn't get someone similar to him to take down Harkin. The problem is getting the foot in the door to take him down. If Jim Ross Lightfoot had prevailed in '96, he probably would've been the guy to hold the seat for the long term. I was sorry to see his loss there and then again for Governor in '98 where he assumed he'd be coasting to victory only to lose in a shocker.

"I agree that SD and ND were inexcusible losses. However, Mattingly was vulnerable in Georgia, his elcetion had to mainly with a huge turnout in the Atlanta suburbs and the scandals surrounding Herman Talmadge."

Had Zell Miller knocked off Talmadge in the primary, Mattingly probably wouldn't have beaten him in '80 (and, ironically, they got their showdown 20 years later and Miller did just that). However, Mattingly spent so much time harping on Wyche Fowler's absenteeism that he forgot (!) to attack him on his very liberal record representing the most left-wing district in GA (a swing of merely 12,000 votes that he could've mined out of South GA and the Atlanta 'burbs could've held the seat for Mattingly). Fortunately, the far better Paul Coverdell would rightly get the seat back for us. A good man and great Senator, RIP.

"It's a darn shame Denton lost in Alabama, the man was a true patriot."

Yup, the Admiral was far more so than John McCain. Denton, however, was not a particular good pol, and was outmanuevered by the more skillful Richard Shelby (then a 'Rat) who charged him elite and out-of-touch over all things because he owned 2 Mercedes-Benz, this right before AL recruited them to the state ! Had Shelby pulled that today, he'd have lost. That win was so narrow, only 4,000 votes would've held the seat for us (but, again, having Shelby win it was a loss only on paper and he voted with us more than against us, but I wish he could've taken Heflin's seat and left Admiral Denton's alone).

"I'm not so sure how LA was an inexcusible loss. Again, maybe you could elaborate, because I never really watched that race."

Henson Moore had the potential to take the win in the jungle primary (he beat John Breaux by 7%, but coming up 6% short), and then stupidly got lured into a scheme that appeared to suppress the Black vote that backfired amongst White voters (a tactic old time 'Rats used in the South, but not Republicans in the '80s). Of course, what the 'Rats use in New Orleans with mass-scale vote fraud that reached epic proportions under the Marc Morial regime in '96 for Mary Landrieu's victory is something else entirely, and something, I'm sure, that Breaux benefitted from in '86, though not enough to have outright stolen the election from Moore.

"Thanks for the info!"

You bet. :-)

"Before I leave, you seem to be incredibly well informed regarding past races. Is there some archive I could look at that has this kind of information? Thanks."

Not online in-depth going back like this, unfortunately. I have a complete set of Barone's Almanac of American Politics going back to 1972, which are invaluable. The first 2 editions ('72 & '74) are very difficult to find and can get pricey, but I bought practically all of mine off of eBay for a relatively reasonable sum. If you can get them all, it's definitely worth it for the wealth of info in them.

48 posted on 05/01/2003 6:41:08 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~Remember, it's not sporting to fire at RINO until charging~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
A Conservative third-party would only serve to reelect the 'Rat. We ought to be encouraging leftist parties like the Greens to try to funnel off the 'Rat vote.
49 posted on 05/01/2003 6:44:01 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~Remember, it's not sporting to fire at RINO until charging~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Would you consider joining with us (Constitution Party- www.cparkansas.org ) if we found a credible candidate for this race?

It wouldn't take much for you to have a more appealing candidate than what is out there.
50 posted on 05/01/2003 6:45:20 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson