Saturday, June 10, 2006

Willett Throws Wild on "Extremism" Charge

State Democratic Chairman Jason Willett embarassed himself last week on AETN when he accused Republican Lt. Governor nominee Senator Jim Holt "extreme". GOP Chairman Gilbert Baker calmly asked him to name what issues he thought Holt was extreme on. Willett refused or was unable to name any specific issues, but kept up the name calling.

This week, Michael Wickline (who can be a bulldog of a reporter when he is on a story) seems to have made an effort to pin Willett down in this article.

Even Wickline was only able to squeeze these three things out of Willett
1) Jim Holt is an extremist because he does not want every child to have an adequate education.
2) Jim Holt is an extremist because the editorial page of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette says that he is.
3) Jim Holt is an extremist because his recent opponent in the GOP Primary, Lawyer Chuck Banks of Little Rock, said he was.

(for a deconstruction of Willet's "reasoning" click SATURDAY below and scroll down or if sent straight here just scroll down)

3 Comments:

Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

1) Jim Holt is an extremist because he does not want every child to have an adequate education.

On what basis does Willett make this charge? Is it because Holt is against school consolidation? Is it because he is against putting kids on a school bus for three hours a day? Is it that Jim Holt does not believe that Courts are good at running schools? If so, that is not just Jim Holt's opinion, it is historical fact. History has proven they are not good at running schools, and I doubt school administrators would be any better at running court rooms.

Little Rock schools were run by the courts for decades. The only excellence in education that produced was a healthy growth in private and religious schools as concerned parents pulled their children out of the deteriorating judge-run schools in Pulaski county- even though those schools got more than their share of the money.

Holt's position on the Lakeview case was IDENTICAL to that of Chief Justice Jim Hannah and Justice Gunter. His position is that the LEGISLATURE is given the power of the purse strings in our form of government and that judges have overreached when they order the legislature to spend more money. Holt also thinks that local control is better than one centralized group making decisions for everybody.

Is any of that extreme? Of course not, it is an idiotic suggestion by Willett to suggest that it is. Anybody can open a civics text book and understand that Holt is right about the separation of powers issue.

He is also right that you can't improve education by closing down schools.

11:59 AM, June 10, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

2) Jim Holt is an extremist because the editorial page of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette says that he is.


PLULEAAASSSSSEE! The Demo-zett is lefty establishment trash. I would hesitate to insult a dead catfish by wrapping it in that rag. They were against the state marriage amendment, which 76% of the people voted for. They want the taxpayers to provide college scholarships to persons who are in this country illegally. THEY are extreme relative to the population they are "serving", not Holt.

12:02 PM, June 10, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

3) Jim Holt is an extremist because his recent opponent in the GOP Primary, Lawyer Chuck Banks of Little Rock, said he was. So did Senator Argue.

If it is okay to use charges hurled by ones opponent in a heated primary then Willett should have no problem admitting that HIS party's likely nominee for Lt. Governor, Bill Halter, made his money from teenage pornography and online gambling, as well as bilking investors in sham companies. After all, that is what his Democratic opponent Senator Tim Wooldridge is saying about Halter. If what ones primary opponent says about one is "proof" then there you have it.

As for Argue, I respect the man's intelligence, but disagree with his base assumptions. Senator Jim Argue is one of the most liberal Democrats in the legislature. On that occassion, where he compared Jim Holt to Orval Faubus Argue sounded about as intelligent and classy as Jason Willett. In the days of Fabus, the Courts were in the moral right. That was the true source of their authority. In this day and time they are not.

The courts are not always in the right. When they are, they should prevail, when they are not, they should be checked. That is the beauty of our system of government. The issue here is that doctrinaire liberals, who are the extremists, know they can't get their agenda through the legislature without a court ruling for cover. The things they are doing are not things that the people want, so they have to bench-legislate it.

12:11 PM, June 10, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home