Republican Rumble In Springdale Tonight!
We would like to use this thread for people to report on what they saw and heard at the Republican Rumble in Springdale Tonight
(Holt vs. Banks vs. Matayo)
(Duggar vs. Pritchard)
(Woods vs. McFetridge)
Please keep it civil and let God decide who is saved and who isn't tonight!
(Holt vs. Banks vs. Matayo)
(Duggar vs. Pritchard)
(Woods vs. McFetridge)
Please keep it civil and let God decide who is saved and who isn't tonight!
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Thursday, May 11, 2006
46 Comments:
All three candidates for Lite Gov did a wonderful job. Senator Holt seemed a little ancy at times, but this could have just been me being paranoid.
I haven't heard Banks speak in person before, but I think he did a good job. He debated the issues, which was truly surprising to me.
I have to say that the debate went great. I am a Matayo supporter and I am proud to say that although there was not winner (there really never is in one of these), Matayo did a great job of staying out of the fray and keeping on task and addressing the issues.
Holt seems to think he is running for president not Lt. Governor. I couldn't believe that he described workforce education as socialistic.
Banks did a good job of holding Holt accountable for some poor judgement, but he sure did look tired. That guy has some passion though, and it came across besides being a little off.
By the way- Holt said that we are spending 31/2 billion dollars on education. What in the world is that about? Matayo was quick to remind him that our state budget is only around 4 billion dollars.
i was not there but the fact is that about 2/3rds of the state budget IS spent on education, so they both may be right.
It very much seemed like Jim Holt was implying that 3.5 billion ADDITIONAL dollars were spent this year on education. He didn't make himself very clear. Matayo corrected him on that point, but also didn't make himself very clear.
After the debate I spoke with Matayo and he said that near 50 percent of the budget is devoted to K-12 education, plus another large chunk on top of that for higher education.
If Jim Holt meant that overall 2/3, maybe even 3/4, of the state budget is spent on education then he would be right. That is not how it came across.
Nonetheless, 9:36 is correct. They were both right about what they were talking about, but they apparently talking about two different things.
[WARNING: Full Spin Zone Ahead. What follows is one of those obviously biased analysis' like those that we so enjoy after the Presidental debates. If you don't like it, write your own.]
Jim Holt's campaign seems much more like the ones he has run in the past. This is good and bad. I have to say that Jim Holt seemed much more comfortable tonight in front of a home crowd than any event I have seen him at so far this election. He seemed less angry and did a better job of appealing to people's sympathy for being picked on by everyone else. He hasn't been able to do that in this election like he has in past elections for several reasons. The first is because he has been perceived as the front runner, but the second is because he has seemed to spend most of this campaign defensive and angry. He was not angry tonight and was much more quick-witted and humorous than at any point in this campaign so far.
The "bad" is that the "old" Jim Holt is back to making ill advised or inappropriate remarks that he may or may not have meant the way that they clearly came across. When discussing Asa's plan for workforce education, Chuck Banks showed he could be a team player and pointed out that workforce education was part of Asa Hutchinson's G.R.O.W Arkansas Plan. Banks didn’t add much more value to the crowds understanding of the topic. Doug Matayo seemed to instinctively know where Jim Holt was going to go. As is typical of Matayo, he demonstrated that he was well researched in the policy discussions and understood the distinctions rather than superficial knee jerk aversions. Matayo explained that workforce education as Asa had described it and the way he believed it should work as a "market-based" approach and should be driven by the demand of businesses in the state. Matayo said he did not believe that it should be used as a type of social engineering tool that drove people into certain careers without a choice. Good answer. You would think either Jim Holt was not listening to Matayo’s response, did not believe it, or did not care that he would be undermining Asa’s campaign for Governor. I don’t have an exact quote but essentially Mr. Holt said that he had not seen the details of Asa’s plan but that the Communist in the Soviet Union had tried it and it was a failure. Whispers immediately exploded throughout the room.
That exchange pretty much summed how the rest of the debate went: Chuck Banks simply restating and selling the Republican consensus policy; Matayo explaining the details of the policy and providing information about how to accomplish it; and Jim Holt telling how it was a bad idea and shouldn’t be done because he perceived it as violating some small part of a rigid ideological framework, even if the overall result may be good.
Jim Holt convinced me that he could be the ideal person to hire for your staff if you were the Lt. Governor. He is ideologically pure and would be the perfect guy to have around to keep you grounded to conservative principles when developing policy. He understands the “why” of conservative principles. But you had better lock him in closet when you start putting policy into practice in the real world or getting it passed into law. Democracy (It has been said that it is the worst system of government in the world, except for all the others.) and the legislative process are ugly and full of compromises in ideology, something that renders Jim Holt completely paralyzed and ineffective. He seems to have no clue as to “how” to put conservative principles in place.
Chuck Banks convinced me that he could be the ideal person to hire for your chief of staff if you were Lt. Governor. He is distinguished, articulate, charismatic, and persuasive. He is the sort of fellow that could artfully negotiate the pitfalls associated with putting policy into practice. He seems to have the “how-to” skills, but lacks the ideological grounding and understanding of “why” conservative principles are important. He also seemed to be the least informed on state policy, the workings of the legislature, and the in and out of state government.
Chuck Banks might be correct in his assessment he is the most “elect-able” in a general election. Nonetheless, obviously Doug Matayo is no slouch in the “elect-ability” category either. More than any of the other candidates, I was convinced that Doug Matayo was far and away the most QUALIFIED for the position. His understanding of state policy, the inner working of the legislative process and the state government, and his ability accomplish the task set before him is clearly head and shoulders above the other two candidates. Matayo may not be the most ideological of the candidates, but absolutely understands the “why” of conservative principles and their importance. Matayo may not be the most charismatic of the candidates, but has proven he has the “how-to” skills to put policy into practice. On those merits as a total package, Matayo is easily the person that would get the nod in a job interview.
Doug Matayo has often said that he seeks to surround himself with people who are smarter or better at specific tasks than himself. Spoken like a true servant leader. With his qualifications, he would be the best choice of Lt. Governor regardless of whatever staff he has. But considering his propensity to use his LEADERSHIP skills to wisely choose good folks like Jim Holt and Chuck Banks as advisors leads me to believe that not only is he the best choice for Lt. Governor, but also an OUTSTANDING choice for Lt. Governor.
Vote for Doug Matayo in the Republican Primary for Lt. Governor!
[Wow, that was fun. I wonder how much Chuck Banks would pay me write something like that for him?]
Was Holt talking about the money that the state will have to spend to make the facilities of the schools around the state comply with the court's demands?
A lot of us think large chunks of that money will be wasted buying things people don't need.
What about the undercards? Duggar vs Pritchard and Woods vs. McFetridge?
11:21, thanks for the analysis (sincerely). However, I'm not looking to elect a water-boy for the Republican party. So that leaves me with the choice of Holt.
Well here is the URL of the story of the Duggar-Pricthard debate
http://www.nwanews.com/nwat/News/40549/
6:38 - But you ARE looking to elect a person that no one will work with? Because that's what you'll get with Holt.
But you ARE looking to elect a person that no one will work with? Because that's what you'll get with Holt.
I think Holt is a minority in being consistent to his core conservative beliefs, like 11:21 says, but I don't think he is a loner. Even so, my other choices for Lt. Gov are those who push socialistic school-to-work (workforce development, whatever the propogandists call it nowadays) and pre-K and seem more concerned with legislation helping illegal aliens than helping the taxpaying people of Arkansas who elected them.
From the article, the Duggar/Pritchard debate was a snoozer- a "me too" debate. Very little distinguishing information was in the article.
Pritchard voted for the casino expansion bill. That's all I need to know when there's a conservative alternative in the race.
What about Woods/McFetridge?
I guess I'd rather have an ineffective conservative than an effective liberal.
Most of the effective liberals these days are posing as a conservative, but are really an establishment statist.
Matayo for example would give us a government just as big as the Democrats, but he would do it more effciently and less corruptly. That is not what I want. Banks, well let's just say there is no IQ requirement for practicing law.
Doug Thompson article on LT. Gov race here... http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/05/12/News/336058.html
Thompson was not at his best on this one though.
I am with you 7:00. I would think that the Woods-McFetridge undercard match would have a lot of excitement. Any word on that one people?
How did the woods/mcfetridge portion go? I would like to know. Thank you.
"...my other choices for Lt. Gov are those who push socialistic school-to-work (workforce development, whatever the propogandists call it nowadays) and pre-K and seem more concerned with legislation helping illegal aliens than helping the taxpaying people of Arkansas who elected them."
Then you better not vote for Asa, since he is pushing workforce education. Why would we want a Lt. Governor (Holt) who wouldn't even support the Governor? And if I recall, Holt is the only one of the three who acually voted to allow taxpayer-funded pre-k--whether he knew what he was doing or not--he still did it and now it is funded. And Holt has also done nothing but TALK about the illegal problem. He hasn't done anything to help make it less of a problem, unlike the other two.
"Why would we want a Lt. Governor (Holt) who wouldn't even support the Governor?"
When the Governor advocates something stupid, like taxpayer funded scholarships for people who are here illegally, then I want a Lt. Governor who won't support the Governor. I want a "team player" who is on OUR team, not a certain political party's team.
Bebee won't say, but I think he is ALSO for workforce education. The big money boys who own both parties have decided that they want the taxpayers to pay their worker training costs, so we are going to foot the bill for "Workforce Education" wether we like it or not. The Dems don't have to push it on their base, they are already socialists. The Republicans do. The grassroots of the GOP don't want this. This is not something that conservatives were demanding. Workforce education is a bill of goods that the establishment is using Asa to sell us.
Asa has at least shown some concern for rural education. If he means it, there is some good in his education stands. I guess we are boxed in. We have to vote Asa IN SPITE of workforce education, not because of it. Then we have to hope it goes nowhere.
Holt stopped the scholarships for illegals bill. That is something he did to discourage illegal immigration. He helped push the bill that allows Highway Police to enforce federal immigration law through (it passed the senate by just two votes).
If he did not get SB 206 passed, that is not his fault. Should we turn to Matayo or Banks because Holt did not get 206 passed? THOSE are the kind of guys that STOPPED IT from getting passed in the first place.
Jon Woods kicked Kathy's ass. She said she was against voucher for education and in favor of toll roads. Kathy is a RINO. Jon is the only real conservative.
The post at 11:21 was right on. You may not like the accurate account of the debate last night, but that is the most accuarte account I've seen so far. You may like Holt as a person, but he doesn't know what he is doing. He doesn't even know what he's talking about most of the time.
Re: Woods - McFetridge
Well, what is so bad about toll roads? At least the service is paid for by the people that use it, unlike now where south Arkansas picks NWA pockets to build highways with low traffic counts.
Also, WHY they are against vouchers is important. There is a conservative case to be made against vouchers- they let the government camels nose in the tent of Christian schools.
Tax credits may be a better way to go- for anyone with school age children who don't attend public school.
10:29 I agree with the toll roads. You go to Oklahamo or Florida or any other state with toll roads and you realize that the tolls are mostly being paid by people that are driving through the state. We lived in Tulsa for 4 years and always found our way around toll roads. We hardly ever used them and neither did the people we knew. Tulsa has awesome roads and are able to have them because of their toll roads. NWA needs roads and we should look at toll roads as a way to get them.
You are right that alot of money goes to the roads in NW Arkansas, but alot of money goes from NW Arkansas to the the whole state. If South Arkansas had the capital enriching potential of this corner of the state I am sure we would be doing the same thing down there.
"I want a "team player" who is on OUR team, not a certain political party's team"
Translation: You want someone on the Constitution Party's team.
"Holt stopped the scholarships for illegals bill"
Wow. All by himself? Gee, I thought there were 35 senators--I didn't realize there was only one.
And I'm so tired of all of Holt's failures "not being his fault". When is he going to grow up and take responsibility for his "mistakes"? Oh yeah, he DOES keep listing all his voting mistakes. I'm sick of that, too.
No I mean it. I want someone who will put service to the state above the interest of any political party. You think the Constitution Party members are the only ones who don't think taxpayers should provide college scholarships to illegals?
Did he have some help stopping that bill, sure. How about Rep. Matayo, did he pass all those bills by himself? I thought there were 100 representatives! Plus, the Gov. did the heavy lifting on the stuff Matayo passed. Holt had to fight the Gov. to stop HB 1525.
Holt is a great guy, I would trust him with my kids (if I had any), I would love for hime to give advice, but he is not qualified to be a politician. Politics is about results, not grandstanding.
There is only person in this race who has proven he can lead and get positive results.
If you don't think Holt is fluent on the issues, listen to him on Pat Lnych archives. http://www.wairadio.com/PAT05020602JIMHOLT.MP3 (will have to listen to a couple of commercials first) Holt just does better with a little time rather than having to use 30 second soundbites. Give him as much as 10 minutes and he has everyone in the room drawn in.
To the person that thinks Matay is best choice because of his skill. This is just how striking Matayo is on the campaign. Exact words on taxes philosophy: "I have never voted for a tax in the legislature. There is a reason for this. I can't say that I've signed a no tax pledge or even promised that I never would. But I haven't. The reason is we still have some more streamlining to do. We have to prioritize our spending In the legislature a lot of times you make choices. What are you going to fund and what are you not going to fund? There is a wonderful thing in Arkansas called Revenue Stabilization. I don't want to bore you with the details. Basically it says this: Before we go home at every legislative session we vote on it. It prioritizes our spending for us. So even if we make a decision to fund one part of state government over another or to increase funding in one area it means we are taking from another. So no tax increase is necessarily needed even if we increase some spending in a certain area. So that is how I have been able to hold true to my no taxes. That is generally my philosophy of government.About as clear as mudy wouldn't you say. Theme seems to be "fool the people" and he tells us exactly how he does it.
Give any campaigning that amount of time and they will do well, what makes Holt special in that regard?
2:26 - Matayo nor his supporters have ever said he passed anything by himself. In fact, he routinely states that he reaches across the isle to get conservative bills passed. What that means is (since you obviously don't understand) is that he works with everyone around him.
But you and other Holt supporters like to claim that Holt is this incredible Stopper of Bills like he doesn't need anyone else to do it. I've never heard him or you give any credit to anyone else. It's all about Holt, all the time. No wonder no one wants to work with him.
8:13 - You obviously don't understand revenue stablization. That is fine, most legislators don't in an entire first session. I think some of them never do. Jim Holt is one of them.
There is nothing about it that is intended to "fool the people." It is simply the result of having to prioritize spending based upon revenues availiable due to the constitutionally required balanced budget.
Where it gets confusing is that often a vote for increased spending usually reorders the priority of the spending but not necessarily the total amount. No matter what budget we have, it always will have allocation via A, B, or C funds. Therefore, no matter what comes in will go out. All of it. Absolutely every single penny of it. [Sarcasm follows] After all, we have a "balanced budget" and if the revenue is greater than the spending, then the budget is out of balance. [End Sarcasm]
This is what Mr. Matayo has been attempting to educate the public about. Because of revenue stablization, we could cut taxes, then cut them again, and again, and again, and STILL would have a balanced budget. It's ABC! Cutting taxes IS by definition in a Constitutionally balance budget the SAME as cutting spending.
This is also exactly why Asa is abit skeptical about a rainy day fund instead of tax cuts. Typically a rainy day fund is a good idea right? The correct answer is yes but, within the framework of revenue stablization, a taxcut is always preferred because not only does it limit spending, but it also absolutely limits goverment growth.
Yet again, those candidates who don't really understand how the in and out of our state government works would blast on Asa for his preference for taxcuts rather than a rainy day fund. But unlike Mr. Holt, Asa knows his stuff.
Kudos to Asa, Kudos to Matayo. We need more conservatives that actually know their stuff and play the game to win instead of getting beat by 15 yard penalties because they don't take the time to learn the rules (Our Laws and the Constitution) of the game.
Oh, and by the way...
Apparently Mr. Holt DID mean that there was 3.2 billion in NEW spending. He IS saying that in a total budget of around 4 to 4.5 billion dollars, 3.2 billion of it is NEW spending.
Here is the proof:
"Jim Holt opposed every measure we considered wasteful new spending. Each of his legislative opponents for Lt. Governor supported at least $3,200,000,000 in wasteful new spending. AFA has found Senator Holt to be one of the most principled legislators with whom we have ever worked. He has faced the heat, stood the test, and always responded with integrity."
Bob Hester, President, American Family Association of Ar.
The above is on Jim Holt's website at the bottom of this page:
http://www.jimholt.us/testamonials.htm
Is Jim Holt intentionally deceiving people by posting that on his website? I don't think so, but it certainly demonstrates that he has no clue about what is actually going on in the legislature. If what he was saying were true, then the last (from the 2003 session) total state budget would have been around 1 billion. That is just silly.
No he is not "intentionally deceiving people". Have you not seen the breakdown on those numbers? Most of that spending has not happened yet. $2.3 billion is needed to get the facilities where the state's study said they should be - which includes a lot of documented waste.
The money has not been spent yet, but Matayo has committed to spending it by going along with the state being responsible for all schools meeting the new, higher, and wasteful facilities "standards" whether the community wants them or not.
Revenue stabilization does not help you here. It is disinginuous of Matayo to suggest he can vote for all this new spending but that is OK because it will never be spent because he does not vote for the tax increase.
If he accepts the principle that the courts can order the ledge to spend money, and he votes for the new spending, that money is going to get spent. Either taxes have to go up, or other services have to be cut.
When the commitments of the state pile up high enough, they will break and raise taxes. You have to say no to the commitments on the front end, instead of being a little weasel who says YES to everything then does nothing to pay for it.
Matayo has been criticized because he votes for massive amounts of new spending that he claims we have a constitutional duty to do, then skips out on the votes for the taxes to pay for it. His dodge about the revenue stablization is weasel talk.
You keep voting for all the new spending, and say you have a constitutional duty to do it, and you are gonna pin the next legislature in a position where they will have to increase taxes. "ABC" is no protection when "A" spending alone exceeds your budget. Which spending that you claim you have a constitutional duty to perform will you leave out?
Matayo must have really stunned Holt in the debate and left him reeling. It took almost two days for his slime and attack machine to get into gear.
These petty accusations from the Holt campaign that Matayo is a "big spender" is no different than the over-the-top attack ads by Chuck Banks. The only difference is that Banks had the money to do it publically. You guys weasel around behind the scenes spreading lies and misinformation that doesn't even allow Mr. Matayo the opportunity to confront his accuser with the facts. At least Mr. Banks was man enough to personally take credit for his accusations.
While you are weaseling around behind the scenes, why don't you ask any legislator if Matayo is a big spender? Why don't you ask if they believe he works to lower spending and cut government while he is a the capitol? While you are wallowing around behind the scenes gathering this information rather than spreading misinformation, why don't you ask any legislator if Jim Holt is an effective and informed legislator?
As to the 2.3 billion number, why is it that the only source for that information is the Holt campaign or those directly associated with it?
Calling Doug Matayo a big spender is as deceitful as calling Jim Holt a big tax-er.
It Loosk like Mark Moore still with Holt campagn afteralll. now deepre sleeper and nastyer. WHy not buided up you're person than tear other down?
"But unlike Mr. Holt, Asa knows his stuff."
"It's all about Holt, all the time. No wonder no one wants to work with him."
"Is Jim Holt intentionally deceiving people by posting that on his website? I don't think so, but it certainly demonstrates that he has no clue about what is actually going on in the legislature"
You MATAYO mADDOGS SHOULD TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE.
I think Matayo supporters are taking their own advice: looking at the issues logically and forming conservative conclusions.
I was certainly dissapointed in Kathy McFetridge when she appeared at a school fundraiser and introduced herself to every constituent in the room except the minority constituents of the 93rd District. Not sure if she assumed they would automatically vote Democratic but you know what happens when you assume. I hope that she does not slight other potential voters this way. She has a lot to learn about working a room.
In response to "let's just say there is no IQ requirement for practicing law." How 'bout volunteering for an IQ match up with Banks--one of the most highly sought after attorneys in the state. You don't get to be US Attorney, or nominated for the federal bench if you are not on the ball. (not to mention the tough scrutiny of FBI background checks.) Now back to the REAL issues. Even though I prefer Chuck--I'll concede we'll be okay with either Matayo or Banks, but the Holt folks saying "God is our our side" need to take that back to their church. We can hope and pray we are on GOD's side, to imply God's preference in the Lt. Gov's race is perilously close to blasphemy.
well then either Bank's has suffered a debilitating head injury since he had it "on the ball" or maybe he made one critical mistake that made him look dumb throughout- hired High Impact Mismanagement to run his campaign.
Hmm I love the idea behind this website, very unique.
»
This is very interesting site... »
best regards, nice info derelict fishing gear marine Xenical reviews Kansas city missouri bingo supplies replacing refrigerator compressor dog high blood pressure pills ate 2 Swing trading stock pick http://www.cell-phone-ringtones-2.info/t-mobile-prepaid-cell-phone.html Lingerie videos Usb hard drive case 35 Epson wide format ink cartridge replacement Digital camera 5x optical zoom http://www.antidepressant-4.info/zoloft-decreased-sex-drive.html http://www.liposuction-photo.info proactiv com Live fishing bait in council bluffs
Post a Comment
<< Home