Thursday, May 25, 2006

Will Banks Endorse Holt?

This snippit from today's Wickline column caught my eye:

"Banks, who has said Holt is out of the GOP mainstream, said he wants to meet with Holt to clarify Holt’s stands on issues before deciding whether he’ll support him in the Nov. 7 general election.

Matayo said he’ll support the Republican ticket. "

Comments on that?

26 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did anyone else notice the real estate devoted to the losers in today's paper? You would think a newspaper would be concerned with giving decent coverage to the winners...

6:49 AM, May 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will the NRA endorse Holt? After all, I thought they endorsed winners with pro-2nd Amendment voting records.

I like the NRA, but the Arkansas chapter needs a shakeup.

4:32 PM, May 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why would you endorse someone who is not aligned with your views? Matayo is a sissy for talking all the trash he talked and then saying that he'd "suppor the entire ticket."
I guess I"m just tired of people who say one thing and do another...

6:02 PM, May 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Matayo is a Republican, and therefore will support the Republicans on the ticket. First you say "we'll see if they are true team players" and then you say "someone's a sissy if they support the entire ticket". You guys are extremely hard to please.

7:59 PM, May 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is "you guys"? That comment was obviously one of your ilk!

8:40 PM, May 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why? Maybe becasue it is not "all about you" when you are part of a team. Banks should resign from the RPA if he cannot endorse the man who beat him fair, square, and decisively.

but country club elitists think the rules are only for the little people.

8:40 PM, May 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't say that I blame Banks. Holt refuses to endorse Mark Martin even though he is the only Republican running.

6:14 AM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen! Where is that endorsement from Holt anyway? Mark Martin is a true Republican.

7:19 AM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hardly think Matayo's statement was an endorsement of Holt.

7:20 AM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:19 When Martin called Holt to ask for the endorsement, Holt refused to give it, stating that he really doesn't agree with endorsing candidates. Now he wants endorsements from everyone else? I don't think so.

7:46 AM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You dorks, Martin was going around the state stumping for Matayo and at the same time demanding that Holt endorse HIM.

Martin is an embarrassment to whatever party he is in. Holt should say the same thing in response to Martin that Matayo said about Holt "I am supporting the Republican Ticket". Period.

PS- though running as an independent, Martins opponent is also a member of the Crawford County Republican Committee.

9:16 AM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of dorks, Holt was going around the state badmouthing Banks and Matayo, but now wants their endorsement. By YOUR own logic, Banks and Matayo shouldn't endorse Holt. It doesn't work that way. You got mad when the NRA wouldn't endorse Holt because "Holt called them a name" but Holt won't endorse Martin because Martin was for Matayo. I think it's time for the Holt camp to grow up.

And if his opponent is a member of the Crawford County Republican committee, then why is he running as an independent?

10:21 AM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

your take on my logic is illogical. If anything, they were all critisizing each other, which is what candidates and their campaigns do. Then after it is over they come together. That is the way it is done in the civilized world.

What has changed is the willingness of candidates to endorse in contested primaries. Frankly, if Bill Pritchard chose not to endorse Holt, he would be within his rights IMHO, because Holt had signs up with his life-long friend Jim Bob Duggar. Still, that was way short of what Martin did for Matayo. Martin jumped in the primary against Holt with both feet. He went around the state telling people that Matayo was the better man.

It is usually bad form to endorse in contested primaries, and the fact that Martin did it relieves Holt of the burden of endorsing him. Any Republican who does not like that can go back to the more civilized rule of not endorsing in contested primaries.

10:37 AM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So it's ok for Holt to endorse his friend Duggar in a primary, but not Ok for Martin to endorse his friend Matayo in a primary. Do you even know what you're saying when you type? Your double standard is ridiculous.

Holt is NOT relieved of the responsibility of endorsing Martin over what's-his-name independent. Good luck explaining that to the Republicans in the legislature. He's already ticked them off with his behavior. If he wants to lead the Republican party, he needs to support the Republican candidates. Otherwaise, he's going to find himself very alone with no reason to whine about others not supporting him.

10:51 AM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Payback it tough, but Martin is completely at the mercy of Holt on this one. He made his own bed, now he has to lie in it.

I already said that Pritchard is relieved of the obligation to endorse Holt because Holt sent signals that he was backing Duggar. How much more then is Holt relieved from endorsing Martin.

True, Holt would have been obligated to endorse his OPPONENT, but not other officeholders who went out of their way to campaign against him. That is the risk one takes when they endorse in a primary, and why most sensibile people don't do it.

11:05 AM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Who is this supposed Crawford County Republican running against Martin as an independant?

2. Why do Republicans have to beat up on Repubicans worse than Democrats do? The leftist have control of the media, academia, and 90% of elected officials in this state yet we attack our own worse than them.

3. The primary is over and while it may not have gone the way i would have it in a perfect world it is over and for the sake of a free market of political ideology we need to make sure that some republicans are elected to constitutional offices.

4. I know all three of the Republican candidates for Lt Gov and I would hope they would all support each other 100+ percent ... supporting your party member is not an admission you were wrong before the election and it isnt a committment to agree 100% with the candidate. It is a show of integrity to the system and the concept of two competing parties.

11:48 AM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well put.

12:00 PM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Banks shouldn't endorse someone who isn't a republican. Banks should run as an independent.

5:38 PM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Holt sent signals that he was backing Duggar"
Signals?? Is that what you call openly saying "vote for Duggar" and linking signs with him? Signals?? Can you hear me laughing?

Holt is absolutely obligated to endorse Martin. He is the only Republican running in the race. Unless, of course, he is for the independent, which would almost be traitor-ish.

7:05 PM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Traitor-ish? Methinks thou doth protest too much...

8:14 PM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Patrick Henry said...

Who really cares if Holt endorses the independent over Mark Martin? Mark left the Republican principles when he voted for scholarships for illegals. If the other candidate is more conservative than Martin, shouldn't the voters be loyal to the principles of conservative government, over the party label? What is wrong with this country is we have Democrats blindly voting for Democrats and Republicans blindly voting for Republicans.

8:36 PM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your protestations about Holt backing Duggar are moot, as the original post conceded that Bill Pritchard was under no obligation to endorse Holt because Holt was clearly favoring Duggar.

In the same way, Holt is not obligated to endorse the volatile Mark Martin because Martin jumped into a contested primary. There is a reason that is bad form. It needs to be discouraged, and if ettiquite frees the winner from having to endorse the other politicos who just tried to end his career then that is a good thing.

It is time to get away from this thing where the office holders all jump in and try to derail grassroots candidates by endorsing in primaries. It is too self-serving.

8:46 PM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have to be loyal to the party label if you want to enjoy the benefits of party membership. The question is, when someone violates ettiquit by jumping in to a contested primary to support one's opponent, is the winner obligated to support the ettiquite violater?

Of course the loser is required to support the winner- anything else would be sour grapes and destroy party unity. But letting office holders interfere with contested primaries can also destroy party unity. The practice should be discourage by having a price tag on it.

8:52 PM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's becoming more and more obvious with every post just who wanted the independent to run against Martin in the first place.

5:31 AM, May 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone who heard Martin on Johnny Tittle's radio show maybe?

7:06 AM, May 27, 2006  
Anonymous Patrick Henry said...

I heard the Johnny Tittle radio program with Mark Martin. Mark's reaction is almost laughable.

1:04 PM, May 27, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home