posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Friday, July 08, 2005
I hope David Broder is wrong about Asa Hutchinson.For the few of you that missed it, long-time Washington columnist David Broder has named Asa Hutchinson as one of the few people who could garner bi-partisan support as a nominee for Supreme Court Justice. Here is Border's quote..."I can think of a dozen current and former governors, senators and representatives -- mainstream Republicans such as Marc Racicot, Lindsey Graham or Asa Hutchinson -- who could fill that role and be confirmed without much of a battle."Is it likely that Asa will be the nominee? I don't find that likely (we should soon find out) so the real question is what that could mean for the Arkansas Governor's race if Broder is right.Superfically, it is good for Asa. It highlights how respected he is in D.C. Supreme Court Justice is a far more powerful position than Governor. This is due to the unwillingness of Congress to exercise their Constitutional and Historic duty to serve as a check and balance to the Judicial branch.On the other hand, such a statement sends up a giant red flag to a conservative thinker like myself. I know that the vast majority of Democrats and some Republicans will fight any nominee that they believe will overturn Roe v. Wade. Do the people that Asa has been hanging out with for the last decade know something that we don't?My logic is like this...1) Broder says Asa would be accepted to the SC without much of a fight.2) Most Democrats and some Republicans would fight hard against any nominee that they thought would overturn Roe v. Wade.3) If Broder is right, the Washington insiders don't think Asa would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, were he a SC Justice.Can anyone find any flaws in my logic? I can only hope that either Broder is wrong about Asa being accepted, or the insiders are wrong about how he would vote.Pro-life voters keep working their hearts (and wallets) out to send "pro-life" politicians into office, so far without result. It seems like somewhere along the line they get co-opted by the system. They still say all the right things when asked, but when it comes time to put it on the line they do not answer the call. I DON'T want that to happen again to the best people in politics- the sincere pro-lifers.So what is it readers? Is my logic wrong, or is Broder wrong, or are the insiders wrong, or are we all wrong about Asa's level of commitment to protecting the unborn?
Mark, that is a good question. However, I don't think Broder said that the special interests wouldn't oppose Asa. Asa has a 100% voting record with the National Right to Life and has been outspoken about his oppostion to Roe v. Wade. He has even said that Roe was bad law and should be reversed. So you can bet NARAL, Planned Parenthood etc... would oppose him viciously, but Broder said that the Senators who have worked with him for years and have already confirmed him three times unanimously for other positions would find it difficult to now oppose him. I don't think you need to worry about Asa's conservative credentials.
That sounds good to me. I hope it is right. My perception of the Democrats is that they are so tied into NARAL and the like that they would not let someone who would do that through regardless of other factors. Do you think Ted Kennedy would not oppose someone who he really thought would vote to overturn Roe? What about Chuckie Schumer? What about Finestine and Boxer? Would Hitlery Clinton? For that matter, how about Republicans Olmypia Snow and Susan Collins of Maine?When you look at the personalities of too many key senators, you have to know that they would fight anyone who they REALLY THOUGHT would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Well you are right that Kennedy and Schumer, and maybe even Snowe, Chafee etc.. may oppose Asa, but the Nelson's, Pryor, Blanche, Lieberman, etc would probably be forced to support him because of his hsitory with them and the fact that they already confirmed him three times.
Asa finally has a web site up. It looks like it is still has some work to do but at least it's something. http://asa.aristotle.net/
I found this interesting on mr. conservative: HOT LINE: Passed 247-175 an amendment to a bill (HR 3494) to establish a national telephone hot line to provide information on sex offenders after their release from prison. Administered by the Justice Department, it would be patterned after a California hot line that helps parents and others keep track of those who have committed sex crimes. The U.S. hot line was added to a bill (HR 3494) increasing federal penalties for sex crimes against children, including crimes committed with the aid of the Internet. The bill passed unanimously.A yes vote was to establish the national hot line.Yes -- Marion Berry (D)Yes -- Jay Dickey (R)No -- Asa Hutchinson (R)No -- Vic Snyder (D)Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock, AR)June 14, 1998, Sunday
Rockefeller has done oppo research and they are using this blog as an outlet to leak dirt. The truth is that that program cost a fortune and would have busted the budget. These programs should be administered from the state, as a true federalist and conservative would support. Rockefeller should go peddle his filth elsewhere or at least have to spend money to trash Asa.
That is a good explanation. Just because someone votes against a program that claims to track sex offenders does not make someone in favor of molesters. Maybe they are in favor of separtion of powers, or maybe of fiscal restraint.The great thing about AW is that you can come along with your "broom" of facts and reason, and sweep dirt away, making your guy seem cleaner than ever.Don't worry, we have seen WinRock put in a very unflattering light here as well. Let the Truth prevail!
It took me a minute to parse the info / mis-info about HR 3494 above. If you read carefully "The bill passed unanimously," which makes it clear that Asa voted for "increasing federal penalties for sex crimes against children, including crimes committed with the aid of the Internet." It seems that all he voted against was adding a California style hotline, for whatever reason. Perhaps there was an alternate amendment? Regardless, he voted for the bill even after the amendment was added. Kudos, that is just political reality.Personally, I would blow the federal budget all to hell to stop (attempt to stop) child molesters. Nonetheless, what I KNOW is that Asa's core values are the same as mine. Which means that if he made a decision on a RARE occasion that didn't make sense, then I choose to TRUST that there was much more going on (than we will never know about) and I would have probably done as he did.
I think anything we can do to keep our children safe, we should do. Obviously Marion Berry and Jay Dickey had the same info as Asa! and made the right decision. Come on, you can't defend EVERYTHING Asa! has done. This vote was clearly wrong.
I don't think a telephone hotline would make any difference. It would just waste money. What you need are police departments sharing information and sex offenders wearing ankle bracelets. Believe me nobody is more of a law and order guy than Asa. Unlike Dickey and Marion, Vic and Asa have been in a courtroom, Asa prosecuting criminals and Vic defending criminals. They both probably know that a telephone hotline does not help the situation and costs a fortune. A fortune that could have been spent on ankle monitors or better yet more prison space. Give it up Rockefeller, you are really desperate when you attempt this garbage.
The other blogs are talking about a recent article in ADG regarding the governor's candidates and further consolidation. In it Asa and Beebe oppose any further consolidation and Rockefeller supports it. I know Debbie Pelley was involved in this issue. I would be curious as to hers and others thoughts on this issue.
If a hotline made it safer for one child then Asa and Snyder should have voted for it. I can not believe the Hutchinson supporters would argue this hotline would not have helped. It might probably would have made access to life saving information readily available. I support him, but Asa was wrong on that one.
You missed the point, maybe a hotline would have made it safer for one child, but that money could have been used on better programs that would have proteceted thousands of kids. Asa was right - the hotline was not the best way to protect our kids, and with a finite amount of resources we should allocate them in the best possible ways. Asa voted for the bill, because he, obviously, wants to protect kids. I can only hope Rockefeller try's to sell this crap that "Asa is pro-child molesters" That should sell well.
Post a Comment
Create a Link
Thank you for visitingArkansas Watch