Friday, June 03, 2005

Squelching Absurd Rumor : Holt Staying in Race

By Mark Moore (click "comments" below to read/comment).

76 Comments:

Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Another blog is speculating that Jim Holt is going to drop out of the Lt. Governor's race. Supporters of other candidates are jumping on it with absurd speculations about how Holt is "behind".

I corrected the record over there, and thought I had better offer the same service to those who read Arkansas Watch.

Jim Holt is not getting out of the race. I have talked to him this week and he is more committed to the race than I have ever seen him before. Just this week there was a meeting in which members of his inner circle interviewed a prospective campaign manager. The emergence of uber-liberal Mike Hawthorn as a Democratic Candidate for this office has Jim really fired up.

It seems to this reporter that other candidates are trying to get rumours started to get an "air of invincibility" about them so that the sheep will jump on their bandwagon. They can only do that by tearing down Jim Holt, as he is the clear favorite.

Holt does not operate like that, but if anyone had an "air of invincibility" in the primary it would be Holt. He already has a state-wide network in place. His name recognition is second to none.

The so-called "negatives" in his name recognition are simply people giving the editors in the big papers more credit than they deserve. The papers have attacked Jim Holt plenty, almost pathologically. But what do they attack him for? They smear Jim for opposing abortion, opposing homosexual marriage, opposing centralised control of schools, opposing more government give-away programs, opposing illegal aliens. Can someone please explain to me how those "negatives" are supposed to hurt someone in a Republican primary election?

On the other hand, he has a 100% pro-life voting record, has never made anything but an "A" with the NRA, and was voted one of the top five legislators on fiscal issues by Eagle Forum. He is also known as a reformer with his bill that demanded financial transparency in political party spending and in getting a dubious Senate Chamberlin to leave. He keeps his promises. What is not to like?

The biggest danger at this point is that the other candidates decide that getting their minions to join with the liberal media in demonizing Holt is the only way they can win. That would be some ugly ambition, and I hope none of them try it.

The less well known candidates are not going to drive Holt out of the race with rumour and inneundo, and if they (or their supporters) feel like they have to resort to doing that to win, then perhaps they should look at dropping out of the race themselves.

11:26 AM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The idea that he is behind is crazy. Holt got 70% of the vote in a three way Republican primary only about year ago. Back then people were saying that Andy Lee was going to beat him right up until the week Jim Holt got that 70%.

He had "hig negatives" from the press back then too. The issue then was judges. Holt was right about standing up to out of control judges too.

Holt sticks to his principles. A real conservative. He makes the fake ones look bad. That is why some of the higherups in the GOP don't like him. The rank and file love him though.

The only way he can lose that primary is if the schemers resort to character assasination.

11:53 AM, June 03, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

Well I am for Jim Holt. Last election he got 42% of the vote in Ashely County. Thats not about showing for a county in SE Arkansas. I plan to help him again.

12:00 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who's he interviewing for campaign manager? Someone from NWA?

12:19 PM, June 03, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

I am sure Jason will continue on in that position. He did a good job for Jim in 2004.

1:05 PM, June 03, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Jason Sheppard currently has a real good job. While I am sure he will help Jim however he can, I doubt he can afford to walk away from that to serve as Campaign Manager for Jim.

There is another hole to fill as well. They had an out-of-state consultant that will probably have bigger fish to fry this time around. Even though Greenberg seems to think that Holt is some kind of Klansman, that paid consultant was a Jew from New Jersey named Rick Shaftan. Rick helped give them the aggressive tactics they needed to stay competitive in the race. Shaftan is up to his eyeballs in busy right now, with the New Jersey Governor's primary. Hopefully, they absorbed enough of his tactics to where they will not have to hire a consultant this time.

I have been told the name of the person who interviewed for the campaign manager's position, but I don't feel I should release it. For one thing, he may not get the job and there would be no reason to embarrass him. Holt is famously tight with a dollar, and may not want to spend the kind of money this fellow is demanding.

1:46 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't win in politics if you don't spend money.

1:57 PM, June 03, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I agree. And the Bible says that the laborer is worthy of his hire.

Jim has managed to win six out of seven races in his career (including a state-wide primary), and some would say he did well to get as close as he did in that last loss.

Hopefully he knows when to let lose of money and when to hold on to it!

2:11 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard he was trying to hire some kid just out of college.

2:45 PM, June 03, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

I know in 2004, Many people came to me for Jim Holt yard signs. I went and gathered supplies twice, and a week before the election I was out of everything.

Surely a race for Lt.Governor will not be as costly as a race for the U.S. Senate. But you never know.

What I am trying to say that I think Jim will have easier campaign battle than he did in 2004.

3:09 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous The Anonymous Coward said...

Now that I have asked you all to pray for Mr. Holt over at the Arkansas Family Coalition blog, I hope everyone is distracted enough that I can kick him while he’s down. I can hear you all already saying, “Coward, go to hell, go directly to hell, do not pass GO, and do not collect 200 dollars.”

Christians should rightfully give Mr. Holt their empathy and keep him in their prayers, but he doesn’t deserve their sympathy.

Empathy is when we try to “feel/understand” a person’s emotional state so that we are able to “act justly and show mercy” without hate. Sympathy is when we try to “feel/understand” a person’s emotional state so that we are able to offer the best form of comfort and charity. For example, we should empathize with the agony experienced by a person whose careless driving led to him running over a child. We should sympathize with the mother who lost the child in that accident.

Jim Holt has brought many of these problems on himself. He doesn’t seem to be a team player and is rarely seen at Republican events unless he is campaigning. He alienates party loyalist by being too cozy with the Constitutional Party folks. His leadership style is extremely authoritarian, much like a father leading a family (which by the way, I think Mr. Holt is a fabulous husband, father, and leader of his family) rather than the coalition builder that is required for leadership in business and government. He probably picked up the authoritarian style from his time in the military, therefore probably a forgivable trait. However, to be a good leader, one sometimes must submit to those who are in authority over us. He typically projects such a self righteousness that few people really get to know if he is really as humble and gentle as his supporters claim. I will stop there with the kicking, my intent is to admonish and edify Mr. Holt, not to assassinate his character which I am sure is better than my own.

It is my opinion that Mr. Holt is not well suited (for reasons stated above) for the rather impotent roll of Lt. Governor. I believe God has more probably called him to offices where he has a vote and where he directly shapes public debate rather than that of an “executive” like Governor or Lt. Governor. God has naturally gifted him as a legislator; he has not (yet) developed the gifts or skills required of an executive.

In my opinion, Holt should 1) humble himself and drop out of this race, 2) beat that RINO liberal Bill Pritchard to retain his state senate seat, 3) begin to repair relationships while holding tight to his core beliefs, 4) work on his public image so that he doesn’t come across as self righteous and authoritarian, 5) spend the next few years beating up on Billy Roper and fighting the sin of racism, 6) develop protégés and help them win open seats in the next legislature, and 7) build the overwhelming political machine it will take to beat Mark Pryor in 2008. I will support him in that race just like I did in the last election.

I have, on this and other blogs, defended Asa, Win Rock, Matayo and will do the same for Holt and LaGrone if I perceive they are being unjustly maligned. If you perceive that I have UNJUSTLY maligned Mr. Holt, I humbly welcome your intelligent and well considered correction.

So far, I have only seen comments from Holt and LaGrone supporters saying, “I HATE Matayo,” “Matayo sucks,” and “Matayo has a hot wife,” rather than engaging in calm and loving intellectual debate. We as Christians should not feed the hateful stereotype the left pins on us, especially among ourselves.

By the way, does anyone have a picture of Matayo’s wife? My curiosity is killing me.

Signed,
The Anonymous Coward

3:22 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Anonymous Coward....please don't forget, I am the still, quiet voice, promoting Gene Yarbrough for Lt. Governor. Plus I have not spoken ill of Matayo.

3:29 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous The Anonymous Coward said...

Drew,

I haven't seen you speak poorly of Holt either. Have you? Frankly, I am surprised by both since I think Matayo was on the board of the group that promoted the marriage amendment and Holt used it as a centerpiece for his campaign.

The Anonymous Coward

3:42 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All Politics maintains that Jim Holt may still drop out. What information have you that he will not. There is quite a movement in the GOP to get him to quietly step out of the race and get behind JL or Matayo. Perhaps the information All Politics is receiving is coming more from the higher ups than the everyday Indians!?!?

I hope that the Truth Blog will do a story on this.

6:19 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

It strikes me as odd that this rumor keeps being perpetuated, possibly in the hopes it will come true. I see no evidence Holt is withdrawing.

6:20 PM, June 03, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

Starting a rumor like this is just plain silly.

7:52 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The folks at the Xanga all politics blog are just not very smart. Why do they have to come to other sites to promote theirs? Its really sad. For example their comment that: "Perhaps the information All Politics is receiving is coming more from the higher ups than the everyday Indians!?!?" is written by them posing as someone else in an attempt to look important. Its quite sad. Mr. Jones, get a life.

8:08 PM, June 03, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Anonymous,

Michael Reagan (son of Ronald Reagan and conservative radio talk show host) calls the Republican party "the stupid party". If the state GOP is even considering doing what you say then Mike Reagan is right.

It is just plain stupid to take a guy who got more votes than Sen. Mark Pryor despite being outspent 60-1, and has built a state-wide network, and ask him to step aside for a relatively unknown state rep. or a Baptist preacher who has never run a race like this in his life.

It is just inconceivable to me that they could be that mind-numbingly stupid. Literally, I am sitting here at my keyboard trying to imagine their reasoning and I am unable to do it. Do they have a death wish?

Holt is in perfect position to win AND to take the print media heat that would otherwise fall on the NEXT most conservative leader in the race. He could neutralize the print media if he wins. Folks wold realize that what they say is not that important.

The obvious thing to do is to get behind the man that won, in a three way race, 70% of the Republican primary vote not two years ago. It is the obvious thing! If the state party is not doing it, then why not? Can they be that stupid? So stupid that I am sitting here unable to comprehend the size, scope, breadth and depth of their idiocy?

No, I have to conclude that the rumour is false. Not even a bunch of guys who can double the FEC record for fines of a state party can "quitely work behind the scences" to get the candidate with by far the most stature to get out of the race so that some unknown can start over again from ground zero. And Holt is squeaky clean besides? Why would a party tarred by recent scandal ask one of their cleanest stars to step aside?

Starting....to....faint.....stupidity......factor.....to.....great......to......imagine....

8:21 PM, June 03, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

If you have faith and follow God's plan, you will stand against all odds. Jim Holt accomplished quite a bit in 2004. Read Hebrews Chapter 11. As of matter of fact I may deal with this chapter in futrure post on the Shamgar Report.

11:05 PM, June 03, 2005  
Blogger proud conservative said...

"It is just plain stupid to take a guy who got more votes than Sen. Mark Pryor despite being outspent 60-1, and has built a state-wide network, and ask him to step aside for a relatively unknown state rep. or a Baptist preacher who has never run a race like this in his life."

Well put.

11:11 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

While Senator Holt did run a campaign and will be formidable in a primary, he cannot win a General Election.

Senator Holt you keep pointing out got more votes than Mark Pryor. Well theres a reason....Holt ran in a Presidential Election year when voters are consistently higher than off year elections. Also 2004 was a year where both parties significantly turned out more votes and registered new voters. But will they remain and return to vote this coming year?

Second, do you think Holt, after going through a bruising primary and maybe runoff, can beat the Democratic nominee????

How can Holt overcome the large Pulaski and Jefferson county votes which will go for the Democratic nominee, almost undoubtedly.

I think Banks or Lagrone have a better shot, personally.

Still Gene Yarbrough will be the Dale Bumpers of 2006, in terms of a relatively unknown who will come out of nowhere and win.

11:18 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Drew, in the spirit of disclosure, is Gene paying you?

12:51 AM, June 04, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

In the spirit of disclosure, once he announces, and we file our expense report you will see.

But he hasn't officially announced....so how could he be paying me yet?

2:20 AM, June 04, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You you do not want to disclose? What do you have to hide?

8:03 AM, June 04, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

Regarless of who you are for the race in 2006 is going to very instersting.

9:22 AM, June 04, 2005  
Blogger Mean Old Republican said...

As a self-proclaimed political expert, I say:

Anonymous Coward 100% correct in his previous dissertation a few blogs back. I would have explained all that, but I don't have the patience. Everyone re-read that.

But, Drew is correct that Lagrone or Banks has the best shot in the General. Matayo and Holt would be about even.

Proud Conservative: You have now convinced me of what I have suspected for some time. You have no clue of what you are talking about. Look at some numbers, talk to some people besides his family.

ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT JIM HOLT HAS A STATEWIDE RECORD HAS NEVER SEEN HIM ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. PERIOD.

10:33 AM, June 04, 2005  
Blogger Mean Old Republican said...

Pardon me, I meant to say "network"

ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT JIM HOLT HAS A REAL STATEWIDE "NETWORK" DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Please people, just dissect some numbers (as Drew unfortunatly has) Please talk to some people around the state and you will see that his support is rapidly diminishing.

Please stop repeating his talking points without hearing from the other campaigns. He owes his 44% to President Bush and Blanche. Period.

10:54 AM, June 04, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mean old repoublican, who are you supporting in the race?

11:01 AM, June 04, 2005  
Blogger Mean Old Republican said...

Undecided....

I know them all, and they are all good men.

Any of them can win. It's too early to make up your minds...no one here has actually heard all three men's message.

I only attack whoever is putting out the stupidest info. on these blogs when I have time to write.

12:00 PM, June 04, 2005  
Blogger Mean Old Republican said...

Undecided....

I know them all, and they are all good men.

Any of them can win. It's too early to make up your minds...no one here has actually heard all three men's message.

I only attack whoever is putting out the stupidest info. on these blogs when I have time to write.

12:00 PM, June 04, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

Jim Holt does not seperate his Christianity from his political views. Like so many other politicans. They say they are personally against abortion , but as a lawmaker they support it. (Example Sen. Lincoln) Jim Holt never turns his back on his religious believes.

Also Jim Holt is one of the Legislatures who refuses to sell his soul to Lobbyist. I am sure all other candidates will sell out to special interest. So their campaigns will have a chest full of money.

12:26 PM, June 04, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clearly the stupidest info is the "Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with abortion" stuff they put out at arkansastruth.blogspot.com

12:34 PM, June 04, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

have ya'll been to arkansasfamilycoalition.blogspot.com?

Its a pretty good, conservative blog.

1:57 PM, June 04, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Mean Old Republican....try not to be so partisan. Check out Gene Yarbrough. You may be pleasantly surprised.

****

Anonymous....isn't it farfecthed to ask what I am hiding when you post ANONYMOUS???

If you want to know that so bad, wait till Gene announces, look at his financial statements, and you have the answer, won't you?

3:07 PM, June 04, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mean Old Republican,

You posted on another site you won't vote for "Douggy Fresh"... Is that because he is a rapper from the 80's? I didn't any rappers have announced. Are you really undecided or holding back on us?

3:27 PM, June 04, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey mean GOP,

Does Holt owe his 70% win in a three-way state-wide Republican Primary about a year ago to Bush and Blanche too?

5:15 PM, June 04, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Republican primaries are rather closed....very small deals.

Holt, who is a State Senator, was up against a contraversial former Sheriff and a woman who had some ties to the Colonel Sanders commercials in the 1970's.

I think the 70% was indicative that versus an incumbent U.S. Senator, Holt was your best shot.

But the sadness is your party didn't recruit Win Paul Rockefeller, Lu Hardin, or someone with crossover appeal into that race. Even your favorite Republican, Asa Hutchinson, shied away.

Before Win Paul's credentials are questioned, lets not forget Bush attempted to recruit him THREE Times into a Senate race.

* 1998 when Bush was still just the Governor of Texas
* 2002 as a primary challenger to Tim Hutchinson, the wife-cheating brother of Asa.
* 2004 against Blanche Lincoln.

Last two times as President.

8:12 PM, June 04, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure those comments are entirely true, Drew.

12:01 AM, June 05, 2005  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

Remember, on the day of the Primary, these same naysayers were convinced that the sheriff would win in a landside! They were not only wrong, they were backwards. They still are.

I don't think the general consensus was that Holt had the 'best shot' against Blanche. I think people just like Jim, and they didn't really like Lee or Clampitt. But the party 'elite' won't put aside their petty jealousies in order to see that.

6:02 AM, June 05, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

Mr. Toast this another reason I left the Republican Party. The leadreship on the state level seem to be really out of touch.

9:07 AM, June 05, 2005  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

They don't care, so long as they're pulling down the big bucks and receiving all the perks that come from their entrenched positions in the party. It's the same attitude found in all the big socialist states which are invariably called The People's Republic of this or that, but it's really just a group of selfish people looking to hang on to their own slice of power and prestige. Anything that truly benefits the People is almost coincidental with these folks.

9:29 AM, June 05, 2005  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

"My intent is to admonish and edify Mr. Holt..."

Talk about self-righteous! Let me 'admonish' you about not following Matt 18:15-20, Mr. Christian, and instead posting your baseless opinions on a blog that the man slandered will probably never even read. If you want to slice-and-dice a candidate, join the fray. But don't try to cloak your vicious and personal attacks in the guise of brotherly Christian love.

By the way, I particularly like the part about Jim "not submitting to authority." What-in-the-world are you talking about!? He's not some serf sent to LR to lick the governor's boots. He's a REPRESENTATIVE of those in his district, and judging by their consistent support, he's doing a very good job.

9:48 AM, June 05, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

I doubt that the speculations or articles in ROLL CALL newspaper were not without merit. Roll Call has such luminaries on staff as Stu Rothernberg and Charlie Cook (both who mentioned the Bush wooing of Winrock).

It makes perfect sense also why Bush and Co. initially approached Winrock each time.

In 1998, Bush was party building and preparing a 2000 Presidential run. He had to win reelection, but he reached out in some key contests around him....like the New Mexico, Arkansas Governor's races, as well as, South Carolina, the first two being successful, and the last not.

In 2002, the urging was more under the surface, but Rothenberg reported that Rove met with Winrock as well as Bush met with him during a D.C. meeting. That more than anything was the most speculative....but still plausible since Tim Hutchinson was bad damaged goods and the Senate at the time was in Democratic hands.

Finally, the 2004 was very public.

Winrock brought to those races, unlimited resources, built in name recognition, and a hope if he ran and won, the ability to groom someone more "conservative" for the Governorship in 2006.

The deal is....Winrock stayed the course and didn't submit to the D.C. insider wooing.

11:46 AM, June 05, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why didn't WinRock run for Senate then?
We know that Asa didn;t run because he had just taken a job with Homeland Security, so why didn't ROckefeller run?

I think he would have won, and I would have supported him over Blanche the lesbian.

12:32 PM, June 05, 2005  
Anonymous The Anonymous Coward said...

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Blogosphere,

Thank you for allowing me to introduce to you “Mr. Toast.” Please mark him as “Exhibit A” for later presentation to the jury of public opinion.

Mr. Toast,

I think Matthew 18:15-20 is a beautiful method of handling sin among brethren, but there are some difficulties in making its application to this instance. First, I did not claim that Jim Holt has sinned (although we know that all have sinned) and he certainly has not “sinned against me.” Second, I cannot legitimately apply those verses because he is not a member of my church. (I wish he were because my church could use a Christian leader of his caliber.) Third, even if Matthew 18:15-20 can be interpreted (I don’t believe it can) to apply this form of “church disciple” to Christians that are not members of the same congregation, what makes you think that I (and others) have not been to him to “show him his fault?”

I have not accused Mr. Holt of sin or self righteousness. I have merely addressed what I believe to be a lack of wisdom, then proceeded to praise his God given gifts and acknowledge those areas where he has not be so bountifully blessed.

I correctly stated that Mr. Holt is perceived as being self righteous. That he is perceived in this way is a fact. However, I realize that just because he is perceived as such does not make it so.

Throughout history Christians have been called to humbly submit to those in authority over them. Slaves were asked to submit to their masters, except where their masters were commanding them to sin against God, even when they have an unrighteous master. Wives are asked to submit to their husbands, with exceptions, even when they had unrighteous and un-Christian husbands. I do not believe that those who have contacted Mr. Holt have asked him to sin in anyway.

I do not personally believe that Mr. Holt is self-righteous. Furthermore, I do not believe that Mr. Holt possess the hate and vitriol for his opponents that a great percentage of his supporters obviously show. Do you feel hatred for me Mr. Toast? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please let me introduce Exhibit A …

Signed,

The Anonymous Coward

12:44 PM, June 05, 2005  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

Firstly, if you'll read what I wrote, you'll see that I never accused you of calling Holt self-righteous. Maybe you've a guilty conscience, or perhaps cannot read? I did, however, accuse YOU of being self-righteous, and I stand by that based on the comments I've read from you. I'd bet most here would agree with me, but maybe I'm wrong.

Secondly, did you not accuse Holt of being proud? Is that not sin numero uno? (Prov 6). You're totally ducking the spirit of that passage, spoken by Christ Himself, if you believe you can rake a brethern over the coals in front of the general public in the spirit of Christian Love. Bull! And if he were a member of your church and you have gone to him to point out his fault, I don't believe you'll find any verse that then justifies taking such accustions before the world. In fact, you'll find the opposite. You'll find rebukes for those who do (1 Cor 6).

You have every right to point out faults in candidates here, and I have every right to disagree. But I'll type it slower for you this time: Don't pretend that your actions are in the spirit of Christian love. There's a way one points out problems in a specific person in such a spirit of love, and I've already referenced it. But what you're doing is nothing but two-bit political discourse along with the rest of us.

Thirdly, we still have no idea what you're talking about with regard to "submitting to authority." I think we all know what it means, but you keep bringing that ridiculous charge up without ever providing any specific examples. We're waiting...

2:15 PM, June 05, 2005  
Anonymous The Anonymous Coward said...

Mr. Toast,

If you had called me a conceited arrogant butthead, I would have had to humbly and sadly agree. The Lord convicts me daily about that thorn in my flesh.

However, your accusation of self-righteousness did sting. I wanted to angrily defend myself. But since it did tighten my heart, I think I should prayerfully consider what you are saying.

As far as me doing nothing but two-bit political discourse, you are right. I thought that I had made that fact clear by disclosing who I support. If I did not make that clear, I apologize.

I also thought I was participating in this political debate with a good measure of Christian love. Unless I just fall completely silent or sychophantically praise Jim Holt, I don't believe you will be satified. Maybe I am wrong.

With regard to the points you made about Jim Holt "submitting to authority", you may have exposed a weakness in the logic of my argument. I need to think about that abit more.

I am convicted and conflicted and all this is not fun anymore. I think I will lay low for alittle while.

Sincerely,
The Anonymous Coward

2:37 PM, June 05, 2005  
Anonymous Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Blogosphere, said...

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Blogosphere,

Thank you for allowing me to introduce to you “The Anonymous Coward” Please mark him as “Exhibit B" ...

:(

The Anonymous Coward

2:42 PM, June 05, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

Things seem to be getting too personal. I am for Jim Holt and I plan to help when im not working. If your not for him fine.

One of my good friends ran for political office and I did note vote for him because I didn't agree with him politically

7:16 PM, June 05, 2005  
Anonymous MArk M said...

Toast,

You are burning them too well. Maybe you should work on being LESS EFRECTIVE. You could take lessons from the folks at state GOP HQ.

First you run off "truth_teller" by calling him on his unique mathmatical concepts in which more people voting in an election means that candidate percentanges go up, and now you scare off our resident "coward" by bringing conviction and confliction.

You are going to have to go easy on your opponents or there will be no one else to set up points for you to demolish.

9:05 PM, June 05, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

I know I am opening myself up....but BRING IT ON....the more you try to burn me....the more I press on towards the goal.

Also, I am delirious right now. I came down with a 24 hour bug or something. My fever broke.

I ask faithfully for prayers of healing and intercession. And if you so feel compelled to disagree with my lifestyle choice....the way I was born....then ask God to deliver me from being
A DEMOCRAT!

:P

Peace of the Lord be with all of you!

9:39 PM, June 05, 2005  
Anonymous truth_teller said...

Mark M

I did not run away. I was not the one who said your % goes up when population go up. I just believe too many people here have not done their homework and have taken Jim Holt at his word and not check his record

6:04 AM, June 06, 2005  
Anonymous The Anonymous Coward said...

Mark M,

I have not departed the company of my blog friends. I just wanted to take alittle while to humbly and prayerfully consider the points Mr. Toast made. That does not mean that I have conceded that he is correct. Quite the contrary, I am simply trying to behave in a Christ-like manner.

I am quite comfortable receiving the ad hominem attacks. A wise man learns and grows from criticism. I am less comfortable in reciprocating those attacks upon a Christian brother.

Since my spirit was pricked, I am restrained from being critical of either "Mr. Toast" and "Mark M" (who I have to assume is Mark Moore) for fear of being self righteous. Of course, I am sure that they and others may exploit my "weakness."

Until the Holy Spirit grants me peace about this, I will try to restrain myself.

Signed,
The Anonymous Coward

7:36 AM, June 06, 2005  
Anonymous The Anonymous Coward said...

Drew,

We need to have a little public discussion here about homosexuality and the Christian faith. It is my opinion that you are dreadfully wrong, but deserve to be treated with love and respect.

Perhaps the moderators would be pleased to provide a separate thread about this topic.

Signed,
The Anonymous Coward

7:44 AM, June 06, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

For whatever reason, I am glad you are back.

7:45 AM, June 06, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

truth_teller,

You are right, there was another poster with a name similar to yours, like "the_truth" that made that error, not you.

I sit corrected.

7:47 AM, June 06, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

No we do not need to have a discussion any further on homosexuality here. You have posted your opinions on the matter and I have spoken my own life experience and personal walk. Can you see how arrogant and self-righteous that statement is in itself?

A discussion does not begin with someone determining the right, the wrong, and the desired outcome.

Furthermore, this site is not here to talk about Drew's homosexuality. So please, lets drop this for awhile and agree to disagree.

9:07 AM, June 06, 2005  
Anonymous PLAIN TRUTH said...

Homosexuality is a form of mental illness. You will never be able to reason with and sodomite.

10:01 AM, June 06, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

AC,

I really wanted the posts to be about Arkansas related issues, even if the threads go off topic. I really don't want to start a thread on that specific issue- though I can't let such flawed theology pass on our blog when it asserts itself, that is not a fight I am looking for.

11:26 AM, June 06, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Mark, so we can agree to disagree and speak on subject matter that is something more relevant.

****

Plain Truth....you speak a lie itself. In the 1970's homosexuality was ruled NOT a mental illness. Why not get truth that is fact, not what you want to claim is truth.

7:35 PM, June 06, 2005  
Anonymous Plain Truth said...

If a bunch of quack Doctors told me that black was white I wouldn't believe them. I cannot think of any action that more clearly demonstrates mental illness than buggery.

You can blinded by your sin.

7:59 PM, June 06, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

I really think you are blinded by your ignorance....and your tone is filled with hatred....which shows your comments are not spoken in a spirit of truth.

You demonstrate by these comments a spirit of arrogance, pride, and self-righteousness.

Finally, I doubt Psychiatrists are quack doctors, or you are more educated to challenge their medical knowledge.

8:56 PM, June 06, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Drew-
Being gay was a mental disorder in the 70s:

http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-07-17/dsm.html

9:02 PM, June 06, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

It was officially dropped in 1973.

12:01 AM, June 07, 2005  
Blogger Mean Old Republican said...

Please correct me if I am wrong....

I have been told from numerous people in the past that the APA cited immense pressure from "militant homosexuals" as part of their reason to make that change.

Granted Drew, I've never seen it for myself. Does anyone out there know?

5:07 AM, June 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is what I hear, that they were under political pressure to change.

There are a lot of cases of homosexuals who have been cured. There are whole ministries devoted to it.

7:13 AM, June 07, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

The reality is this....groups that oppose homosexuals have said they were pressured. They were not pressured anymore, than those who wished to keep it listed as a mental problem. Furthermore, you and I know the psychological/psychiatrist community is a large, diverse, and very educated community that is not going to be swayed by some lobbying.

Also, Anonymous....there has NEVER been a case of the ministries that supposedly cure homosexuality of actually working. In fact....the leader of that movement actually returned to his true state and abandoned his original idea.

People....it boils down to this....a question of faith. I personally know I was born gay. I cannot change who I love....who I am attracted to....who I believe God wishes me to be with.

You seem to think its so easy to label it so many ways....and yet, you look at it from the outside. You are not able to make this judgement call.

My life, before I came out. My life when I was closetted. My life when I tried to be "straight" was one of misery. It was a life where I sinned in many forms greatly. It was a life....God did not create me to live....because I lived a lie.

Since I have come out....I have balance. I have peace. I have a stronger walk with Christ.

Now....anymore....anymore continuing of this and grasping at straws to prove a point....shows you are doing this for your own ego. I caution you brothers, to step back.

Some of you are not listening with an open heart or an open mind. You definitely are not acting Christ like.

So I ask....that we allow this conversation to end....here and now.

6:51 PM, June 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree - I am tired of reading about Homosexuality. Lay off Drew, if not for his sake than for the rest of ours.

7:14 PM, June 07, 2005  
Blogger Mean Old Republican said...

Drew,

I for one really enjoy seeing your comments on this blog (and others). Your input is stimulating and well thought out. Furthermore, I definately respect your back-bone.

7:08 AM, June 08, 2005  
Blogger Arkansastravler said...

This is great, I found two Conservative Arkansas blogs in the same week, I'm wondering what I did to deserve this. Although I am a little confused because the topic was about Holt and it all the sudden morphed into Drew's sexual preference. Can we get back on more interesting topic (not that you aren't Drew)? I'm interested what everyone thinks of Jim Lagrone. I have met him on several occasions and he seems like a politician trapped in a preachers life. But he also seems like someone that could come out and surprise everyone. He also has more than a hint of Huckabee redux. Any thoughts?

2:05 PM, June 09, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More like a preacher now trapped in a politician's world. I think that he is a novice politician. BUT, I think he is loaded with potential. I think once he gets his feet wet, he could go a long way.

2:15 AM, June 14, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

My thought is that we don't need any Huckabee redux. I am glad that he came and rescued the Governor's office from the hands of very crooked and immoral democrats, but it is time to move on.

Statewide office is not an entry-level position. The old Republican Party had to get guys like Huckabee to run for statewide office without holding any other public trust. Now the state GOP has a pretty good bench of local elected office holders to draw from. That is your natural pool to draw from in considering candidates for higher office.

You have two guys in the race who have been in the legislature, have run bills, and who know how it all works. One of them is even in the Senate (the Lt. Gov. is President of the Senate). Why would you want to pass over both of them to elect a preacher?

10:07 PM, June 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said, Mark!

9:55 AM, June 17, 2005  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

Indeed, Mark--well said, as always. Anonymous@2:15AM & Arkansastraveler, let Lagrone get his feet wet as a State Rep or maybe even State Senator. Does he think he's too good to have to serve at a lower position and prove himself worthy of the higher offices? Haven't we all had our fill of being stabbed in the back by expert campaigners who turn out to be nothing more than liberals with the gift of gab? As Mark has said, why not go with someone you already know and trust?

9:17 AM, June 18, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did you find it? Interesting read 1969 pontiac grand prix 4 speed for sale Football best bet galeria upskirt Feather mattress cover

4:52 AM, February 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enjoyed a lot! Nicoderm cq stop smoking Eyes contact lens online http://www.proactiv-solution-9.info Infared penis picture Developer site web worcestershire

4:58 PM, April 23, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home