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.

[Catspaw]

Odd standards? Yup, Yankees don't approve of adulterers. Southerners certainly do.

[Catspaw]

Are you usualy this verbally abusive or does it come naturally to you? If so, I'd suggest angermangement classes, if they aren't court-ordered already.

[Catspaw]

The problem Hutchinson has is that most men will condone what he did, or even cheer him on. Most women take a different view entirely (thus your wife's castration requirement for his holding public office).

[No Truce With Kings]

A little crudely put, but never the less, is right on.

Kamikaze Conservatives do not appreciate subtle.

[Lauratealeaf]

That dog won't hunt. Hillary was a Yankee from Illinois who was quite willing to go down to Arkansas and be a beard for Bill. Is she your role model? There is a big difference between a serial philanderer and someone who divorced after 29 years of marriage. I recall that the former Mrs. Hutchinson refused to move to D.C. to support her husband. Not a smart move. But this is not really what you are all about anyway. If you really cared about the future of our country you wouldn't be having a hissy fit about Hutchinson's divorce. You would know that President Bush needs all the support he can get in the Senate. (and our military) He needs the votes to select good judges. And one of the best reasons for re-electing Hutchinson is that Tom Daschle will no longer be preening and puffing about being the majority leader. But, no, silly, emotional women like you and your mother think you are making a statement by voting against the man who is the right choice and what you are really doing is sending a liberal to the senate for many years. True lunacy. I find that very odd.

[ofMagog]

I'm not sure "most" men would condone dumping one's long term wife for younger arm candy. Do concur the other fellow could benefit from anger management, or at least a little tact. Having seen him on other threads, I can say he is at least consistent. Perhaps A+ came back under another name.

See one poster blaming the wife for not following her husband to Washington, as if his job was more important that his marriage and family. As I said, I'd vote for TH only because the GOP needs him, but I would hold my nose.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Good comments. Like it or not, good or bad, it is high time we Republicans stuck to our guns and backed our candidates no matter what has taken place in their personal lives.

For the eight years of the Klintoon presidency I railed against the activities of the rapist in chief only to be told by people that, "Hey a politician's private life is just that, private."

Now when it involves the private life of a Republican, we are told that it does matter. Not by the dems, but by some of our own Republicans.

Are they correct? In a moral sense yes, but not in a political sense, if they want to win elections.

Plus I suspect in all of this the facts as to just exactly what happened in Tim's private life have been twisted out of shape to what actually happened in reality. I suppose one of the energetic freepers in this forum can find us some proof that Tim committed adultry. I would like to see that proof.

Bottom Line: I don't much care if Tim as a former Southern Baptist pastor made a promise to keep the famalies together. And then so called violated that promise by getting a divorce and marrying another woman. His private life is in my humble opinion, private. All I care about is how he votes in the Senate and that he backs our Republican President against Daschle and his cohorts.

If one is a true Republican and cares about his party and the welfare of our country, to not vote for Tim Hutchinson because of his supposed indiscretions is in effect to vote for Pryor and is in effect cutting off one's nose to spites one's face.

[conservative_2001]

"Are you usualy this verbally abusive or does it come naturally to you? If so, I'd suggest angermangement classes, if they aren't court-ordered already."

Why don't you address my points instead of dropping adultery charges and running like a chicken when called on it. I'll ask you now for a 4th time - where is your evidence that Hutchinson ever committed adultery?

Here are some more questions of mine that you've ducked:

- How many dead babies are worth it to you so you can beat your chest that you made a moral stand by voting against Senator Hutchinson?

- What did voting against Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole do promote morality in this country?

- How moral is it to kill unborn children?

Did you expect to come in her and drop adultery charges and not be expected to prove it? Where is your evidence that adultery was ever committed here? You've made your charges, refused to provide your evidence, then cry like a baby when someone calls you on it. Either prove your charges or admit you are wrong.

[Lauratealeaf]

If one is a true Republican and cares about his party and the welfare of our country, to not vote for Tim Hutchinson because of his supposed indiscretions is in effect to vote for Pryor and is in effect cutting off one's nose to spites one's face.

So true. Tim Hutchinson gave my son his appointment to West Point. On the day that we found out that he had been selected Tim called my son but he was at school so Tim said that he would call back. He did. Not only that, but he would write my son encouraging letters while he was at West Point, asking him to let him know how he was doing. Now my son is a Captain in the Engineer Corps and will probably be deployed when and if the war comes. I cannot stand the thought of a weak spined Pryor in that Senate seat when my son (and probably husband and brothers) are called to go. This is serious stuff, not spitting little catfights. We need people who support the military in the senate. Tim Hutchinson has done a splendid job.

[Catspaw]

So he met his staffer at a social occasion and not in his office where she was employed? When do you think those little love sparks started? While Hutchinson was married or after the divorce to his last wife was finalized?

Hutchinson is an adulterer. If he doesn't like being called that, he can sue me.

[Catspaw]

Ah, I love that "silly emotional woman" remark. So charming. Hutchinson is an adulter and you expect Republicans to act like Democrats, to forgive, forget and make excuses for truly bad behavior.

That's really too bad. One of the reasons I'm a Republican is that I thought that we had a higher moral standard than the Dems. This thread has proven that I'm very wrong.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

So he met his staffer at a social occasion and not in his office where she was employed? When do you think those little love sparks started? While Hutchinson was married or after the divorce to his last wife was finalized? Hutchinson is an adulterer. If he doesn't like being called that, he can sue me.

Temper, temper, may be time that you join conservative in those anger managment classes.

[bert]

....My last name is Pryor....

My father brought you Bill Clinton

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Congrats to your son. Ditto on the thought that Pryor in the Senate is a nauseating thought.

But hey, we Republicans have a higher standard and the Dems and that is all that counts, right? (sarcasm off)

[Lauratealeaf]

Ah, I love that "silly emotional woman" remark. So charming.

You prove it with your comments. You can't seem to grasp the big picture. You take one negative aspect of a person's life, of which you cannot know the true circumstances and jump to the conclusion that that person should not be re-elected, preferring the liberal alternative. You must have really been burned because you are not looking or thinking logically. You are reacting emotionally.

[conservative_2001]

"So he met his staffer at a social occasion and not in his office where she was employed?"

Actually she was one of his high staffers, not that it much matters. They were friends.

"When do you think those little love sparks started? While Hutchinson was married or after the divorce to his last wife was finalized?"

Is this your "evidence" of adultery? That's sad. They were friends, then later fell in love after the divorce. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it.

Have you ever heard 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor'? It's one of the 10 Commandments.

Those accusing Hutchinson of adultery are committing a greater sin than anything Senator Hutchinson has done. Isn't that ironic? The moral stand anyone thinks they're making by voting against Hutchinson pales in comparison to the sin they've committed by accusing Hutchinson of adultery.

"Hutchinson is an adulterer. If he doesn't like being called that, he can sue me."

It's not the Senator you should be worrying about.

[Lauratealeaf]

I suspect that behind the catspaw lurks a donkey's behind.

[Catspaw]

If I lived in Arkansas (I don't; my friend does) I would not vote for Tim Hutchinson because he ran on family values and he betrayed those family values. If he was an hoorable man, he would have either resigned or not run for reelection. He chose to run, knowing that it would be a tight race because, like my friend, some conservatives, primarily social conservative women, would not vote for him because of his betrayal of his marriage vows. He thought he could brazen it out, and apparently, none of his political advisors counseled him that if he ran, he'd stand a good chance of losing those votes--and the possibility that the Republicans might lose that senate seat. It's Hutchinson's responsibility for this election, and if he loses, it's his own fault because of his own moral failures.

Frankly, calling me emotional is a good dodge, but it doesn't address the issue of Hutchinson's moral failings, except for posters who say that a vote for a man who ran on a family values platform, but yet did not honor his marriage vows is worthy of a vote. Other posters are waving around emotional issues and raising straw arguments. Face facts: If Hutchinson had not behaved as he did, he'd be a shoo-in. Because he did, he stands the chance of squeaking in or losing. That's no one's fault but his own.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

It's not the Senator you should be worrying about.

Yeah with our higher standards giving us Pryor instead of Hutchinson in the Senate, as Dashole and his cohorts expand the abotion of babies, continue to take away our rights to own weapons of self protection, but we stand our high ground.

The Dashole controlled senate gives luke warm support to the President in the war effort, stacks the courts with liberal leaning judges, but we stand our high ground.

The economy contines to suffer as the dems refuse to pass legislation to improve the economy, such as a reduction in capital gains taxe, but hey we stood our high ground. And the list goes on and on, but hey,

we stood our high ground.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

, he'd be a shoo-in. Because he did, he stands the chance of squeaking in or losing. That's no one's fault but his own

Well your last statment proves that you don't live in Arkansas. The Pryor name alone will probably get Mark elected over Tim, or any other squeaky clean Republican that we could run against Pryor.