Monday, April 03, 2006

Moore Responds to Chuck Banks' Press Release Against Holt

Quotes from Mr. Banks’ press release are in italics.

Banks: It has come to my attention that my opponent Jim Holt’s campaign has been making incorrect accusations about me.

What accusations? Please name them! All we have done is accurately state the positions of the candidates so that voters can make up their own minds based on the facts. This is normally a very civil and mannerly part of the process. Mr. Banks talks about expanding pre-K. Mr. Banks was for the failed highway bond issue. He favors building bullet trains. He wants a repeat of the 1986 program that waived deportation and gave many illegal aliens a fast track to citizenship. We don’t “accuse” him of these things any more than we “accuse” Jim Holt of being pro-life and anti-tax. How in the world can people make up their minds who to vote for unless the candidates make clear what separates them on the issues?

(click "Monday" below for the rest of article, then scroll down. If sent directly to article just scroll down)

16 Comments:

Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Banks: During this campaign, I have become increasingly confused and troubled by Jim Holt's deeds as contrasted to his rhetoric. He takes positions that are extreme.

Again, please name them. People that claim Jim Holt is extreme have a hard time naming the issues he is "extreme" on. Was he extreme when he was in the trenches getting the Defense of Marriage Amendment on the ballot? 76% of the voters agreed with him on that. Was he extreme when he stopped our state government from taking money out of taxpayer’s pockets to give college scholarships for persons who are in our country illegally? What about when he had to take a stand against the recent highway bond issue that would have given an un-elected commission the power to put taxpayers in debt indefinitely? 62% of the voters agreed with him on that.

We agree that Jim Holt takes courageous positions that the insiders don’t like. We disagree that they are extreme.

Banks: Wednesday’s (March 29, 2006) Democrat-Gazette quoted the present pro temp of the Senate, comparing Senator Holt's actions pertinent to education to that of Orval Faubus. Holt responded with a joke.

Comparing Jim Holt to Orval Faubus is a joke. How should we respond when liberals try to play the race card? Is he suggesting that Republicans should back down when liberal Democrats play the race card? If so, Republicans will never win another battle.

Banks: Holt's other comments about the Supreme Court suggest a defiance toward the Court and education that is ill advised and un-Republican.

There has been debate as to whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to make a constitutional ruling directed at the Arkansas General Assembly. The issue is moot.

We are duty bound to follow the law of this state.

There is no such law. There is only a court ruling. Senator Holt knows that courts don’t make laws, legislatures do. The courts have exceeded their jurisdiction in ordering the legislature to spend more money.

As six other state courts have ruled, and our own dissenting Justices Hannah and Gunter have ruled, it is the legislative branch that has the power of the purse strings in our form of government, not the judicial branch. Our state courts have over-reached.

Senator Holt does not share Mr. Banks’ opinion that “the issue is moot”. I will keep it simple, if you think the other branches of government should continue to let the courts push them around, vote for Mr. Banks, if you feel that it is time to reign in the courts then vote for Senator Holt.

See, no accusations, just a clear contrast of positions with confidence that the people, once informed, will make the right decision.

Banks: I think it is puzzling that a state senator from one of the most populated and fiscally well off districts provides this type of representation. His constituents and his colleagues I think deserve better.

Perhaps the reason they are prosperous and well-populated is that his district is full of God-fearing people who love freedom but respect the law. That is the exact balance that Senator Holt has. That view of life produces prosperity, freedom, and order more than any government program ever could. It may be puzzling to Mr. Banks, but not to the majority of Jim's constituents. Mr. Banks may think Senator Holt's constituents “deserve better” but in election after election they have shown that they don’t care for his version of "better". Jim Holt has been their choice and the Senator is profoundly grateful for their support.

Banks: Now as to a specific allegation from Mr. Holt’s campaign aide. As I have said repeatedly, I do not favor scholarships nor amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Wait a minute. At last we are getting something that perhaps appears like it might be something Senator Holt has done to Mr. Banks. Up to this point, the entire press release has been Mr. Banks insulting and accusing Senator Holt.

But is there anything there? What exactly is Mr. Banks’ complaint? He never says. He does imply that a Holt campaign aide has accused him of favoring amnesty for illegal aliens (or “immigrants” as he likes to call them) and of favoring scholarships for illegal aliens.

If that is indeed what Mr. Banks’ press release is trying to say, all he could be talking about is a March 26 post on the Arkansas Watch blog (www.arkansaswatch.blogspot.com). Debby Pelley is a contributor to that blog, and I, Senator Holt’s campaign director, have been a moderator on that blog since well before I took the job in the Holt campaign.

On March 26th, a report by Debbie Pelley was posted about how Chuck Banks answered a question on immigration. She accurately reported that he said that he was against scholarships for illegal aliens. Any implication otherwise is false. She also posted that he said the following…..

Banks: “I fall back to my days as US. Attorney. We already have a program in effect in the federal government that if we want to ferret out illegal aliens if they have no criminal record or no hate crime connection to anti American government sources; and if they are just people that are here and ought to know better, they need to get their papers straight and if they are just trying to work and feed a family, I think we ought to put them on a year's probation and say you have 12 months to get your papers straight or you're gone.”

That is what Debbie Pelley, who is a strong supporter of the senator’s but refused any formal role in the campaign, reported that Chuck Banks said. Now let’s go to Mr. Banks’ own press release where he gives his version of what he said….

Banks: As I said recently in Jonesboro, I go back to my experience as U.S. Attorney where there exists a process by which illegal immigrants, when detected and detained, could be placed on a year's diversion and during that time the legal credentialing to permit legal citizenship should and must be completed, if not deported or prosecuted.

Compare the two statements. They are basically saying the same thing. What is he complaining about? Debbie Pelley reported what he said and then he issues a “clarification” that says essentially the same thing. So what is the problem? That is his position. Chuck Banks thinks that this does not amount to amnesty. He says of the procedure ‘I do not believe this amounts to amnesty, but I think it does suggest mainstream conservative values, simple prudence, and recognition of the pragmatics of the problem.”

I have not said so before, but I disagree. I think it is amnesty, even if someone refuses to call it by that name. If you catch an illegal alien you should deport them, not give them a year to go through a process where if we don’t find out about any other crimes then they become a citizen.

The process Mr. Banks refers to can only be the failed 1986 amnesty program. The one that we were told would be a “one time only” or “last time ever” deal that combined with never-realized tougher border controls, would end the illegal immigration problem. Twenty years later some folks are trying to sell us the same bill of goods on a much larger scale. Are you buying?

Prior to the Banks press release, Mark Moore did not accuse Chuck Banks of being for amnesty and neither did Debbie Pelley. She simply reported what he said and added “I would appreciate comments from anyone who knows exactly what Banks means by the statement, "We already have a program in effect in the federal government." or from anyone who can explain what Banks means by the line "if they are just people that are here and ought to know better, they need to get their papers straight and if they are just trying to work and feed a family, I think we ought to put them on a year's probation and say you have 12 months to get your papers straight or you're gone"

Is Banks advocating some type of amnesty or just what? If anyone knows his position and can clarify it, I would like to hear it.”

She only asked the question. She did not “accuse” him of being for amnesty, she just asked if it seemed like he was. His answer seems to be to attack Jim Holt and deny that what he is advocating amounts to amnesty.

Again I will keep it simple. If you want a program like Mr. Banks is advocating then vote for him. If you think illegal immigration should be discouraged then vote for Senator Holt.

In conclusion, after all the brutal media attacks that Jim Holt has had to endure for standing up for what is right I am having an extremely hard time developing any sympathy for Mr. Bank’s angst. He seems to be greatly bent out of shape over something that he never can quite get around to naming and the only event I can put with it is quite mild and issues-oriented.

I have seen Jim Holt subjected to immense unfair pressure and blatantly false accusations that portray him as the exact opposite of who he is. Compared to what Jim has gone through, having a retired school teacher accurately quote your position on a blog and then wonder aloud if this means you are for amnesty is such a trivial matter that I cannot understand the uproar. I can’t understand how someone who wants to be a candidate for statewide office can get so bent out of shape over it.

Mark Moore
Campaign Director
Senator Jim Holt for Lt. Governor

11:21 AM, April 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Was he extreme when he stopped our state government from taking money out of taxpayer’s pockets to give college scholarships for persons who are in our country illegally?"

But he had no problem voting to fund Pre-K, which takes money out of taxpayer's pockets to give free daycare for persons who are in our country illegally. If you excuse this vote one more time by saying "he didn't know what he was voting for" then we can also assume he didn't know what he was voting for the rest of the time. I guess he just got lucky on some of his votes, but is now playing it off like he actually knows what he is doing.

And why isn't Jim Holt responding to Banks' press release on his own? I don't think the man is smart enough to do so. He is hiding behind Mark Moore, who also had to take a lot of time to respond. If either of these men had any brains, they would've responded immediately. It took them this long to come up with something to say. I don't want someone like that holding public office.

12:03 PM, April 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, I didn't see Holt's response sooner. I still don't understand why it took so long. Anyone else would've responded immediately. Jim just doesn't have the brains.

12:05 PM, April 03, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

He has voted against pre-K every time. The only time it slipped by him was when he was a rookie legislator and he thought the program was to help kids who were suffering from situations where there was alcohol abuse in the home.

It is deceptive to keep implying that Holt is for Pre-K. That is the difference between ACCURATELY giving someone's record and giving only a deceptive little bit.

And Holt gave a reporter a scoop on his response. Had to wait until it came out in the papers yesterday before he made his response public. You are just nit-picking.

12:10 PM, April 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess everyone knows that Holt did respond. It is the thread right before this one, and it was in Wickline's article in the papers yesterday.

12:10 PM, April 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A vote is a vote. If Matayo had voted this way, you'd be all over him. You would spin and spin and spin, just like you always do. Jim Holt cannot vote for something and then make excuses for it later.

HE VOTED TO FUND PRE-K!!! How many more votes will he make excuses for later? I think we're up to 3 now.

12:13 PM, April 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am still looking for the words Illegal Aliens in the HB1525. It is not there.

12:58 PM, April 03, 2006  
Blogger GoBanks said...

Mark, why don’t you explain to all of us about this Constitution Party of yours. Since you were president of it at one point, you should know all about this faction of politics. I mean, wouldn’t you be more at ease NOT being a Republican?

1:18 PM, April 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, is Jim going to be able to answer the questions tonight without you giving him the answers or were you able to find a way to hide those puppet strings?

2:06 PM, April 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dude, the link to the CP is on the main page of this blog, it is not like he is trying to hide anything.

7:20 AM, April 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am sure HB 1525 used some PC euphemism such as "undocumented immigrant". So what? We know what it was talking about.

7:24 AM, April 04, 2006  
Blogger Harvey Edwards said...

Illegal means illegal any way you say it. The act requires prosecution.

7:48 PM, April 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Moore will you put a Jim Holt sticker all over this page so people know what you are selling. Moderator in your case is the wrong word, try something else.

7:36 PM, April 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dude, he signed at the bottom that he was Holt's campaign manager, so quit your crying. The other blog is clearly for Asa, not that there is anything wrong with that, but they don't tell you who they are at all.

7:48 PM, April 05, 2006  
Anonymous just curious said...

Guys, is it true that Harvey Edwards is actually an Arab? I read it at Arkansas Family yesterday. I went to his web page, and I guess he kind of looks middle eastern, but ???

10:43 PM, April 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best regards from NY! »

2:23 AM, March 07, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home