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.
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.
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.
"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."
Well, there might be some effect, but Hutchinson could counter by airing ads of Clinton PRAISING him because his prosecution of Roger Clinton on a drug charge when he was US Attorney, the Slickster claimed, saved his brother's life. Quite a testimonial. He could air that in heavy 'Rat areas !
Sure thing. I'll try to answer them if I can.
"A few things I never got about the North Carolina seat (the one Richard Burr will hopefully win next year) is how it seems to be cursed. After Sam Ervin retired, the seat changed hands every six years (not counting the appointment of James Broyhill). I guess my question is how did each of the winner's take their seat (not counting Edwards, because we all know why he won). The one thing I really want to know is how did that fool (I'm not saying I have a problem with him ideologically, just that he was a poor candidate) Faircloth beat Terry Sanford, whom I thought was a revered figure in NC. And why did Governor Jim Martin appoint Broyhill, anyway? Thanks."
Hmm, well... It's hard to discuss the "jinxed" seat without mentioning Jesse Helms's influence, who held the seat throughout the period, so I'll mention him a bit... Going back to the very first election upon the revered Sen. Ervin's retirement, you have to look at the climate in the state in '74. Because, again, of Watergate, all of the GOP gains in NC were being wiped out, and a lot of the traditional Conservative 'Rats were returning to the fold because of what was termed the "Ervin Revolution." There were 3 major candidates on the 'Rat side, that being Henry Wilson (a Kennedy appointee who had moved down from Chicago, although he had been born in NC), ex-Congressman (and leftist) Nick Galifianakis (who lost to Jesse Helms 2 years earlier) and popular Attorney-General Robert Morgan. The GOP didn't really bother to field anyone of any stature, a textile exec named William Stevens. The amount of money spent and the end result of the election was about the same, with Morgan prevailing 2-to-1. As the luster of the 'Rats wore off, Jesse Helms was working his magic (with fundraising, a powerhouse almost unmatched at that time). As late as 1979, no one really expected Morgan to be defeated, but Helms had other ideas on how to make both seats GOP and went to work. Illinois native John East seemed to fit the bill, and he obtained the nomination unopposed. In another year and without Jesse Helms, East would've been the type to win perhaps less than 30% of the vote, but not this time. East had no record (he was a college professor), but he had Jesse and Jesse's fundraising lists. East had amassed so much money (outspending Sen. Morgan $1.2 million to $900k) and was able to run tv barrages on Morgan's votes on key issues, essentially tying him to Carter, and the result was an 11,000 vote win for East in a shocker. While in office, East was essentially a carbon-copy vote for Helms, but was largely quiet by comparison. Many on both sides had been burned out after the "race of the century" occurred in '84 between Helms and outgoing Gov. Jim Hunt, so it wasn't expected to be too big a deal in '86. East also had declining health while in office and many expected he was not going to run for reelection (he was wheelchair-bound and suffering from thyroid problems), and indeed he announced he wasn't in 1986, right before he committed suicide by sealing up his garage and leaving his car running. That left Gov. Jim Martin to appoint Jim Broyhill (who had been considered the leading candidate to run in '86 if East were to retire). I should mention that there were 2 distinct wings of the NC GOP at that time, the old line Western Mountain Republicans (the "establishment") of which Broyhill and Martin belonged (and both of whom had served in adjacent Congressional seats), and the newer Helms "Congressional Club" Republicans based in the central and eastern part of the state (ex-Conservative 'Rats), and both detested the other. The Broyhill/Martin Republicans hadn't even bothered with running a candidate in '80, but Broyhill was determined to win this time, and did. He did so after beating the Helms-backed candidate, ex-Ambassador to Romania David Funderburk, by a huge margin. There was no arguing the Broyhill was the more experienced candidate (I should also note that Funderburk finally did win election to the House in '94, only to lose it stupidly 2 years later because of a hit and run incident that he tried to weasel his way out of. That GOP-leaning seat is still held by a 'Rat). Jim Hunt, who could've had the seat in a cakewalk (well, at least what the pundits claimed), but he had no interest in returning to the political arena just yet. That left the "revered" old Terry Sanford, who, at 69, was somewhat of a has-been, a leftover from the JFK era of Southern Progressive Governors. Broyhill might've prevailed, but he couldn't quite connect to some of the loyal Helms backers and ran behind in the areas he badly needed (had Funderburk won the primary, he might've been able to, but given his future character deficiency, that might not have been much to crow about). Going into '92, Sanford might've been able to pull off reelection and break the jinx, but at 75 and voting a very liberal record that he simply couldn't defend (he was no Robert Morgan, who was practically a Conservative 'Rat), he was in serious trouble. Lauch Faircloth himself had worked for Sanford & Hunt and switched parties only a year before in '91 (some said he wanted the '86 'Rat nod for Senate and was determined to get even with Sanford, even if he had to do it as a Republican). Faircloth had the solid backing of Helms, and he fairly easily beat then-former Mayor Sue Myrick by a good margin (48%-30%) in the primary. As "old" as Faircloth looked (he was then 64, 2 years younger than Elizabeth Dole was when running last year, surprisingly), he was 11 years younger than Sanford, and considerably healthier. When Sanford had to undergo heart surgery right before the election, that pretty much sealed the deal (also, again, like in 1980 between East vs. Morgan, Faircloth outspent Sanford). I wouldn't have been as harsh in describing the old Scotsman Faircloth as you, he did do a good job as Senator, but Edwards got to play "the young man" in the '98 contest and he almost matched Faircloth with his ambulance-chaser bucks, but it wasn't quite enough. In '04, Richard Burr will get to play the "young man" to Edwards (Burr is 2 years younger), but his big hill to climb will be in raising the bucks (of course, Edwards was $1 million behind and won, so that proves Burr need not outraise Edwards, but that he should get close). With Helms retired, he won't be able to deliver for Burr like he did for Faircloth in '92 (but perhaps ole Jesse might still lend a hand as a nice final gift to NC !). Hopefully that answered your question (and that was the briefest answer I could give).
"Also, did a little research into that guy Chic Hecht, and you were absolutely right: he was a not a politician, and it's a wonder Dick Bryan didn't beat him in a landslide. My favorite gaffe of his was "Nuclear Suppository."
Heh. We make fun of Hecht, but he is probably an example of the type of citizen legislator that the Founding Fathers had in mind. I actually erred in saying he was not entirely not a politician, he had previously served a short stint in the state legislature. Hecht still stayed competitive with Bryan because he raised slightly more money than the then-Governor and he actually made an issue over Lt. Gov. Bob Miller as the person who would succeed Bryan (at the time, Miller's father-in-law had just been indicted), and the race ended up close. It's too bad Barbara Vucanovich had chosen not to run back in '86 or '88 for either Senate seat, as she probably would've more easily held a seat for us. Having Reid & Bryan in there for so long was/is rather inexcusable.
Recalling that contest, I did believe it would be close (as most races there are), but thought that Faircloth would pull it out. Edwards struck me then, as he has proven now, to be a slick ambulance chaser that was way off to the left of the electorate. I'm rather amazed he was able to be so articulate in court when he comes across as being so fuzzy-brained (remember his infamous showing on Meet the Press ?) discussing "his vision." I think the majority of the state now realizes this as well and that he was really only using the office as a springboard to the "big job."
"My idea of a citizen legislator is Bill Frist. Although he has a few things to learn about being majority leader, he's a good guy who didn't enter the senate because he wanted a title in front of his name."
When he first ran in '94, I didn't support him in the primary (I was for Chattanooga businessman, and now Mayor, Bob Corker). The guy had not been in politics at all, save an appointment or two, and that from a 'Rat Governor (no one was even clear about his leanings) and the family was part of what I called "the problem" here in Nashville (that many moneyied interests here clearly lean GOP on the national level, giving enormous amounts of campaign $$, but don't do a goddamned thing about the dead (and I REALLY mean dead) GOP in this city and have no problem getting along with the 'Rat establishment that has held a deathgrip control for 120+ years straight). In other words, I smelled a RINO (back before the word came into vogue). There were some other side issues, such as his not voting much until he was in his 30s, and the business with going to local pounds for cats as a med student (which, as a cat owner, seriously disturbed me), that led me to support Corker. However, I did support him after the primary because the horrid marbles-in-the-mouth Jim "Daff-uh-Zit" Sasser, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and part of the gang of thugs that blackmailed Bush, Sr. into breaking his word on taxes (and hence giving us the recession that caused his defeat) had to go, period. It was thrilling to see that jacka$$ brought down after 18 years of tyranny, and I was not surprised to see him sent to Beijing as Ambassador (he probably carried cash to Gore, I wouldn't be surprised). I however, did NOT support him for his current post as leader (I wanted Rick Santorum, who I thought was more experienced and would've been more effective. Though it sure would've been tricky if he had spoken on that most recent subject that I won't repeat here, even if I largely agree with what he was getting at). I think Frist is too nice a man for the job and not up to matching the gutter politics of the 'Rats. We frankly could take a lesson from the 'Rats in how they ran the Senate, people like LBJ and George Mitchell were utterly ruthless, and that's exactly how we should be... Ruthless with a PLEASANT demeanor. 3 AM call to break a filibuster ? Do it. Aw, need your sleep, 'Rats ? Tough $hit. Frist had to get up that time as a physician at the drop of a hat to do some life-saving procedure. He should treat the Senate the same way.
"Plus, Senator Frist is a policy wonk (unlike Hecht, who said he should be Ambassador to Bermuda (his consolation prize after he lost) because of his experience with golf and gambling)"
Actually, as cushy as Amb. to the Bahamas sounds, it was during the '80s when he was appointed when we were reaching an apex of problems with drug transport out of there. It's funny, though, I wrote him for an autograph photo about 2 years after he stepped down and when I asked him what he was doing, he mentioned how he was working on his golf game. :-)
"If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Alexander Hamilton were alive today they would probably point to Bill Frist as a model citizen legislator. After all, Frist has said he will do exactly what the Founding Father's wanted politicians to do: serve a couple terms in congress and then go back to their earlier occupation."
Oh, he may retire from the Senate, but I doubt he'll retire from politics. It's quite possible he may run for Governor or even President before the decade is out. Running for Governor would mean he could match our current Gov., who won through fraud (violating state law on how one can fund one's own campaign, a law the 'Rat hack AG refused to enforce) as well as deception, dollar for dollar.
"It's to bad we can't pass a law term limiting RINO's and democrats (with the exception of Ralph Hall, and maybe Charlie Stenholm and Zell Miller) while exempting all conservative republicans."
Yeah. Incidentally, I just remembered a real example of a "citizen legislator." There was a Republican in PA named Gary Myers. Myers was a Steel Mill Foreman in the '70s when he decided to take a run at an incumbent House 'Rat named Frank Clark in a 'Rat leaning district. He first ran in '72, losing to Clark, but then ran in the worst godawful year for the GOP since probably 1958 or 1936, and hammering away at Clark mercilessly for going on junkets and being the tool for powerful special business interests, Myers took him down despite being outspent by nearly 3-to-1. Thinking it a fluke, the 'Rats targeted him for defeat in '76, and he won again (despite the GOP losing the district for Ford). The state GOP thought they had a star on their hands and a potential future Senator. He shocked them all by saying in '78 he was retiring -- and going back to being the Steel Mill Foreman ! The GOP and Michael Barone all puzzled why on earth he decided to do that. The answer was simple, he hated Washington. Ideally, you'd probably want more people like that, people that come in, do their job without an eye towards wanting to accumulate seniority, and then getting out. Imagine what kind of a situation you'd have in Washington if everyone was limited to one four-year term ? But, alas, before we imagine that, it wouldn't suddenly become Nirvana. You'd have experienced staffers and aides being the real de facto Senators and Congressmen, just jumping from one person to the next. Sometimes term limits ain't always the answer, either... :-(
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.