Arkansas Democrat Gazette Endorses Hutchinson Campaign

Arkansas Democrat Gazette thru "Hutchinson for U.S. Senate" webpage ^ | Oct.20, 2002

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Arkansas Democrat Gazette Endorses Hutchinson Campaign Arkansas Democrat Gazette October 20, 2002 For Tim Hutchinson We know where he stands RULE NO. 2 in taking on an incumbent politician is: Explain why the voters should make a change. (Rule No. 1 is: Raise lotza money.) The principal argument Mark Pryor has made for unseating Senator Tim Hutchinson is this: My last name is Pryor. That may have been good enough for his father, but it isn't good enough for us. And it shouldn't be good enough for serious Arkansans, either. Even on the most important of issues, Mark Pryor just smiles his smile, awshucks his way through the question, and all but sketches imaginary circles on the floor in front of him with the toe of one shoe. It's almost as if he's counting on some kind of automatic voter reflex to put him in the United States Senate. (Ballot says Pryor, vote same.) Agree or disagree, Arkansans have the right to know where their senator stands on abortion. Mark Pryor was prochoice in 1998 when he ran for attorney general, or said he was. Now he says abortion is wrong but he wouldn't do anything to stop it. And while he's opposed to abortion personally, he thinks women should be able to abort their children. Well, sometimes. After all his talk, all we know is this: If Mark Pryor gets pregnant, he promises to have the baby. As attorney general, he aw-shucked his way past those payday loan lenders who take advantage of the least among us. He was satisfied to take their money and leave them to prey on the desperate. He also defended an unconstitutional law that branded homosexuals as criminals. And our attorney general showed even less backbone when it came to thoughtcrime. Maybe you remember that. Maybe not. We don't blame you if you don't. His rationalizations weren't worth remembering. But Attorney General Pryor once backed a hate-crime law for Arkansas. He said the bill would punish only conduct, not thought. Nice sound bite. But it made no sense. The proposed hate-crime law would have increased penalties for those who commit an offense if their thoughts were in the politically incorrect place. Beating up somebody over his race/color/ religion/gender/sexual orientation would have got you a 20 percent higher sentence. Beating up somebody else because of his class, dress, political affiliation or for just his wallet would get you a 20 percent discount. Thought had everything to do with it. That's why these laws are a species of what George Orwell called thoughtcrime. They create "protected classes" that divide ordinary victims from special ones. We ourselves would prefer to treat all criminals equally. And severely. Granted, our conversation with the attorney general on this issue got ridiculous at times, but that's what happens when an attorney general supports a ridiculous law. Our minds fog just thinking about it. We were thinking of that weird conversation when some simple, sensible thoughts intruded: Tim Hutchinson deserves a second term. Yes, there have been times when we didn't like how he voted or what he was saying, but we knew where he stood. And could understand it. He gave the conversation some traction. The senator is gaining in seniority, which helps small states like Arkansas in Congress. He's a solid supporter of the Second Amendment and gun rights. He's a member of the Armed Services, Veteran Affairs, and the Agriculture committees, among others. He has taken a consistent, principled stand on abortion. (He's agin.) And you never have to wonder what the heck he's trying to say. But, we've forgotten the most important reason of all to vote for Tim Hutchinson. It's more important than bringing home the bacon, more important than his opponent's non-answers to tough questions. The president needs Tim Hutchinson in the Senate. So do all those who value freedom abroad and a free market at home. This isn't to say Mark Pryor wouldn't lend W. a hand if it were the popular thing to do, as on issues like the War on Terror. He would. As long as the polls held up. But this president needs a Republican majority in the Senate to push through other legislation - like making his tax cuts permanent - and to approve judicial nominees now stuck in the long, long partisan pipeline. The 107th Congress is still sitting on dozens of judicial nominees, and it's tying up the court system in elaborate knots. (Strom Thurmond pert-near birthed a cat the other day when the Judiciary sat on one of his favorite nominees. But it was kind of fun to see the Senate's oldest member "ever" raise Cain with these 70-year-old whippersnappers.) The Homeland Security Bill is stuck in the mud, meaning the Senate. And in the next couple of years, a couple of vacancies could be opening on the Supreme Court of the United States. Who will fill those seats - a Scalia or a Ginsburg? A thinker or another vague mediocrity? The answer could determine the course of constitutional law for the next decade. Or more. Do the people of Arkansas want every nominee to kiss current Majority Leader Tom Daschle's ring before a vote? Mark Pryor could prove to be another arrow in Sen. Daschle's quiver. A vote for Tim Hutchinson could prove a vote for a much-needed new majority leader for the U.S. Senate. A Republican-controlled Senate could clear the way to exploration of oil drilling here at home, and that would mean less reliance on Middle Eastern mullahs. Other needed legislation is also knee deep in the Senate. A lot could depend on your vote November 5 th. (Or tomorrow, when early voting starts.) Will we reform the Social Security system, letting folks decide to invest a portion of their own money, or let the system get as close to bankruptcy as possible before rushing pell-mell to save it? You have a close race and some great issues in your hands, Mr. and Mrs. Arkansan. Lest we forget, at critical times like these, all politics is national. Every seat in a closely divided Senate is decisive. A smile, a familiar name, and a handshake shouldn't be enough to win your vote. Arkansas needs to send an experienced, principled senator, one with the president's ear, back to Washington.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Heard Hugh Hewitt talking about this tonight. Arkansas residents would choose a Democrat over a Republican like Tim Hutchinson just because of a divorce and remarriage? They compare Tim's marital difficulties to the serial philanderer and Commander in Chief who loathed the military, gave away our nuclear secrets while closing off our energy sources and teaching schoolchildren the meaning of Bjs?

[Brandon]

Heard Hugh Hewitt talking about this tonight. Arkansas residents would choose a Democrat over a Republican like Tim Hutchinson just because of a divorce and remarriage?

That's not what it's about. Hutchinson's problem arises from religious conservatives who have become disenchanted with him because of his personal behavior. If Hutchinson loses, it will be because this group decided to stay home on Election Day (or leave the Senate line blank, which amounts to the same thing).

[Catspaw]

A friend of mine who lives in Arkansas will not be voting for Hutchinson for the reasons you cited. She won't be voting for Pryor, but she cannot bring herself to vote for Hutchinson.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

What a smart, funny editorial and what a compelling argument in Hutchinson's favor. I hope Arkansans are listening.

As an aside, I watched a Hutchinson/Pryor debate televised on CSPAN and couldn't believe what a mealy-mouthed wimp Pryor is. Hope he isn't allowed to get away with it.

[mountainfolk]

Sorry to hear that because this is the thinking that kept Clinton and his corruption in control of Arkansas until he got bumped up to the White House. We all come short of the glory and Tim Hutchinson is no worse or better than his fellow Arkansans. At least he admits his marriage failure and doesn't flaunt it like the Clintons do. I hope enough voters in Arkansas prefer the repentant man to the return of corruption to this state if the democrats continue to win back their power here.

[sweetliberty]

Not a bad article. Arkansas, are y'all listening?

[Catspaw]

My mother was the same way. If a man divorced his wife for another woman, as in this case, she'd literally boycott him. She, like my Arkansas friend, cannot and will not vote for someone who didn't believe in their marriage vows. That's why neither voted for Clinton. And that's why my friend will not vote for Hutchinson.

Perhaps it would've been better had Hutchinson resign and have Huckabee appoint a strong Republican who does believe in his marraige vows when all this started. But she will not vote for a man she considers to be amoral, and she considers Hutchinson amoral.

[moneyrunner]

How did your mom vote on Clinton?

[Catspaw]

I believe I already said she didn't vote for Clinton in my previous post. She voted for Bush 41, then Dole. Of course, the bumper stickers on her car(s) were a big giveaway.

[Lauratealeaf]

We all come short of the glory and Tim Hutchinson is no worse or better than his fellow Arkansans.

Sounds like someone's mother ought not be voting at all if she cannot understand the political differences between the two men. Hutchinson, although flawed takes conservative stands. Pryor is lying about his views. It was quite easy to read him. He is bad news for our state. It really irritates me to hear people criticize Hutchinson because of his divorce. I suspect that many of those who do criticize him have done worse than that. Hypocrites.

[Catspaw]

You mean that it's okay to leave one's wife for a much younger staffer? I've never done that. Have you?

[sweetliberty]

"She, like my Arkansas friend, cannot and will not vote for someone who didn't believe in their marriage vows."

I may be talking off the top of my head here, especially since I don't know all the details surrounding Tim Hutchinson's divorce and remarriage, and I guess I have to respect someone who bases their votes on principle, however, I believe in the marriage vow as much as anybody I know and yet I am divorced. I don't care to get into detail about it, but I do not believe I am less of a person or less of a Christian because of it and I am not willing to hold only that one thing against somebody. There can be all kinds of reasons for problems in a family. Some can legitimately be cause for ending a marriage. Granted, most are not, in my opinion, and a lot of people in today's society have a real problem with commitment and priorities. But all that aside, I don't believe it is my place to judge the man and I feel that I must cast my vote in this election in the interest of the greater good which I believe is in retaking the senate to give President Bush the opportunity to get some conservative judicial nominees seated and overcome the obstructionist tactics of Tiny Tommy Daschle and his herd of liberal sycophants. I guess everyone has a line they don't feel they can cross. I do as well, but this is not it.

[sweetliberty]

"You mean that it's okay to leave one's wife for a much younger staffer?"

I don't think anybody has suggested that it is okay.

[muleboy]

A powerful and snappy endorsement from the ADG.

Paul Greenberg must be experimenting with Viagra.

As for Religious Conservatives refraining from voting for Tim, I am reminded of Barry Goldwater's assertion that "it is time to GROW UP CONSERVATIVES". If the GOP is to capture and maintain working majorities in the US Senate and HOR, then moderates need to vote for extremists and vice-versa. Tim will need the votes of 'religious conservatives' in northwest Arkansas to counter a popular Democratic "name" and the inevitable voter fraud, just as Sununu will need them in New Hampshire to overcome a Hillary-clone.

These races and many others will determine whether there is any chance at all for future tax cuts, possible reductions in the size of the federal government, and more Scalia's on the US Supreme Court.

[Catspaw]

My friend is the Arkansas resident, not my mother, but they both hold the same views: if a man (or woman) leaves their spouse for another woman (or man), they will not vote for that person. They both believe that persons who run for office should have a higher moral standard. They also believe that marriage vows mean something, and if a person breaks those marriage vows, they cannot be trusted with holding office. That's their moral standard, and why neither could vote for someone who was divorced under those circumstances. It does not matter to them that he's a good Senator or Congressman. They believe that if someone is willing to break their marriage vows in this way means that that person will break other vows and promises. My friend will not vote for Hutchinson and she's never voted for Clinton (governor or president). She will not vote for Pryor. In my mother's case, because it was a choice between the amoral Clinton and a divorced Bob Dole, she voted for Dole because she didn't believe Dole left his first wife for Elizabeth (I just called her to verify). Had he done so, she would not have voted for anyone for president.

[Catspaw]

I don't think anybody has suggested that it is okay.

I'm not so sure. Posters are suggesting that one should set aside high moral standards to maintain a Republican Senate, affairs be damned.

[No Truce With Kings]

You mean that it's okay to leave one's wife for a much younger staffer? I've never done that. Have you?

Of course it is not o.k. But if I had a choice between voting for a man who left his wife for a much younger staffer or leaving the Senate in control of a man like Dash-hole, I would hold my nose and vote for the philanderer.

That is unless you like having being pro-abortion as a litmus test for Federal judges.

That's your choice hoss. Vote for Hutchinson or kill unborn babies.

[Catspaw]

Okay, I'll tell her to set aside her moral values and vote for an adulterer so a pro-abortion candidate doesn't get in. That is what you're saying, isn't it?

[cksharks]

Then your mother and her friends have no right when the Senate stays in Demmocommie hands,to bitch about the issue of abortion.Because if the Senate stays in demmo hands we will not get the Judges in place to overturn Roe.Alot of idealests bite their nose to spite their face.