ASA HUTCHINSON SAYS NO RUN FOR SENATE PLANNED

Associated Press | April 30, 2003

[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.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"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.

[JohnnyZ]

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?

[AuH2ORepublican]

"What about Gunner DeLay?"

---

Don't know enough about him. What can you tell me?

[JohnnyZ]

State rep, I think. Generally favorable impression, but not much real info.

[fieldmarshaldj]

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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"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.

[Arkinsaw]

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.

[Arkinsaw]

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?

[JohnnyZ]

"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

[votelife]

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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

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

[AuH2ORepublican]

"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.

[Arkinsaw]

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.

[votelife]

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.

[Arkinsaw]

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.

[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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

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.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"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.

[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."

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.

[Princeliberty]

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