Sunday, November 19, 2006

Primary Challenge to Pryor and the Power of Fatherhood

New father, Bill Halter
Brummett had a column today pointing out how Beebe posed as a conservative to win. If you have a good personality, all a Democratic politician has to do is fake right on social issues (unfortunately, fiscal conservatism is not as popular) in order to get most Arkansans to feel comfortable with them. That is enough to get victory.

Such rules do not apply in the Democratic primary however. It is only a small subset of the population, and a doctrinaire liberal has the advantage- just so long as the general public does not pay too close attention. That allows the Democratic candidate to run left in the primary, then fake right in the general election. How can they get away with that? Easy. The media won't call them on it. They needn't worry about the "watchdogs" in the media alerting the public to the shift in positions. If the other guy tries to do the media's job and point out the incongruity, that same media is quick to label him a "negative campaigner".

All this brings me to the more interesting note in Brummett's article...

(continued- click SUNDAY below and scroll down for rest of article, or if sent here just scroll down)

63 Comments:

Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Brummett reported the comments of one disgruntled "politcal animal" with these words:

"After he'd expressed his discontent with me, he went into a brief rant about U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor's performance.

He said Pryor better be careful, acting the way he was acting in the Senate. The man claimed that the junior senator might find himself facing a Democratic primary in 2008. He wasn't particularly happy with Pryor's voting record or his endorsement of Sen. Joe Lieberman's independent candidacy for the Connecticut U.S. Senate seat. "

This is not the first time we have heard rumours of a primary challenge for Pryor. Though he is still fairly left, he has been too centrist for many Democratic Primary voters.

Where might the challenge come from? We are not Democratic insiders, but many posters on the Arkansas Times blogs are. They have identified Lt. Governor Elect Bill Halter a potential challenger. Some have even gone so far as to claim Halter operatives have op-researched Pryor's voting record. It is easy to speculate that Halter wants to go back to Washington.

Now to be fair, Halter has never said publically that he was interested in a primary challenge to Pryor, nor has he ever denied it. Even in the AETN Lt. Governor's debate, Holt flatly stated that he was staying as Lt. Gov. the whole term and not interested in seeking another office. Halter stayed mum on that point.

Before some Dems get on here and start accusing me of starting rumours or being "out to get" Halter, I want to make a couple of things clear. One: Brummett and the Arktimes site are the rumour sources for a Primary run at Pryor, so go to them for complaints on that one, or simply ask Halter himself to end the confusion with a flat statement that he will not challenge Pryor in 08.

Second, I am NOT "out to get" Halter. I with him success in office, and I pray he performs with wisdom. I have reason to believe that he will. Mainly this is due to the fact that he became a father for the first time just before the election.

There is something about fatherhood, especially to a little girl, that brings out the best in men when nothing else can. I have known some hard-core leftists that have become hard core conservatives, just by the humanity of becoming a father.

My hope and wish is that Bill Halter completes this journey successfully. I hope that his views on abortion change when he holds his infant daughter in his arms. I hope that on her third birthday his push for pre-K changes as he looks in here eyes and realizes that she is too young to be sent off to a government institution. And I hope that his views on the morality of doing business with the producers of teen porn change when she gets to be a teenager.

It has often been said that a neo-con is a former liberal with a 16-year old daughter. With good men, that is often the way it works.

1:26 PM, November 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moore - you're so full of baloney.

Halter will never challenge Mark Pryor. Just because you saw a blog posting somewhere about it doesn't make it true. That's like reading the writing on a bathroom wall and proclaiming the words are handed down from on high.

You wrote: "Some have even gone so far as to claim Halter operatives have op-researched Pryor's voting record."

That was a lie cooked up by on of Halter's primary oppnents and no basis in fact. But you're fallen for it.

Fact is Halter beat your boy Jim Holt like a red-headed stepchild and you can't get over it. It was a pounding of massive proportions. Holt also got rapped on the knuckles today by the Democrat-Gazette for his election night comments. Holt's political career is thankfully over.

7:16 PM, November 19, 2006  
Anonymous Bobby Don said...

Moore, you're an idiot on this one. The Deomocratic primary is not small "subset of the population" in Arkansas. Most Arkansas voters vote in the Democratic primary in Arkansas to vote in local races--including lots of voters that vote GOP in the fall. These voters aren't the "liberals". You've drank too much Holt juice...

7:21 PM, November 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In this post, you misstate one fact, and you grossly mischaracterize something else.

First, Democratic primary voters are not "a small subset of the population." They are half the voting population. About half the people vote in a Democratic primary in May as vote in the general in November. Look it up. That's not a small subset. That's one reason Democrats tend to win in Arkansas -- people vote in Democratic primaries and become familiar with the candidates early.

Second, I've never understood the criticism of pre-K programs by you and Jim Holt. The stuff you say about sending off someone to a government institution is, I'm sorry, just plain weird. I recently sent one child to a pre-K program when he was 3 and 4 years old. It was wonderful. He loved it, he developed a love of learning, and he had a wonderful teacher. He is performing very well in school, and I attribute that performance both to the emphasis his mother and I place on learning and to the pre-K program. I wish you and Jim Holt would spend some time visiting pre-K classrooms. I suspect that if you would you'd quickly change your minds.

7:23 PM, November 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Holt also got rapped on the knuckles today by the Democrat-Gazette for his election night comments. Holt's political career is thankfully over."

Ha ha-- the DemGaz has spoken! You and your liberal pals only wish that fish wrap had an impact in politics.

7:57 PM, November 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well let's see, there are 1.7 million registered voters in the state. Between 750,000 to 800,000 of those cast ballots in the general election.

The SOS website did not show figures for the Dem. Primary, but it did for the Dem. runoff. According to KATV http://katv.com/vote2006/electionresults.html

171,000 voted in the Dem. statewide runoff, with contested races for many statewide offices. So that would be about 10% of registered voters voted in the Dem. primary run-off and 21% of election day voters voted in the Dem. primary run-off.

Sounds like a small minority of the total voters picked each party's candidates.

8:09 PM, November 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to 7:23
George Orwell:
"The home environment can undo a lot you try to do at school. That's why we've lowered the kindergarten age year after year until now we're almost snatching them from the cradle."
Sounds like our fixation with preschool to me. Send your kids off as babies to another set of "parents." Allow them to develop loyalties to adults who may or may not have YOUR belief system. Then ask years later WHY your kids listen to everybody else but you! As a teacher I've seen just how easily teachers can manipulate kids. But why would you care about that? You're basically getting free babysitting, aren't you? That's all pre-school is - free babysitting. They don't do anything there that you can't, and should be doing at home yourself with YOUR children. I even had another teacher admit to me that she wanted our school to open a preschool because it would save her a couple of hundred dollars a week in babysitting fees. Interestingly it didn't seem to worry her that the money she was saving was coming out of the rest of our pockets!

8:34 PM, November 19, 2006  
Anonymous Mark M said...

Hey 7:23,

Look, I am glad that you had a good experience with it. I spent twelve years teaching and I know what the norm is.

If you want to put your child in some kind of preschool program, I don't want to stop you. It's your choice,- BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WANT AND WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR CHOICE.

Government supported Pre-K represents the government taking sides between families who want to keep mom home with the kids for those two years and those who want to get mom back out in the workforce earlier. Why should the home mom side pay so that the work mom can have her way? I ask you, is that fair?

8:34 PM, November 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right on Mark M. A woman's place is in the kitchen. Nothing but a walking uterus if you ask me. (I realize you didn't. So please don't delete my post)

9:16 PM, November 19, 2006  
Anonymous Mark M said...

As opposed to government secularists who view women as potential "cash cows" who need to be pushed out into the workplace? Pushed out by taxing their husbands to provide government day care disguised as education to encourage her to make the decision to go back into the workplace and generate revenue for the IRS so the big spenders will have even more money to through around.

Traditionalists reject your Brave New World. If you want to do it, its your business. We don't want to pay for it. It would be akin to taxing homosexuals to provide for a fund to help pay for the weddings of straight people.

5:52 AM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The money devoted to preschool in Arkansas doesn't pay for free pre-K plans for all children, only those below 200% of the poverty line (about $60K per year for a family of four). I'm the guy who sent his kid to a pre-K program, and thought it was worthwhile. I make more than 200% of the poverty line and I paid for it myself.

I do take exception to those who call it free day care. It's not day care. They are teaching these kids valuable math and reading skills. It is a school, not a babysitting service.

I see now your main objection -- money. You don't think the government should pay for pre-K programs because you don't want to spend the tax money.

I'm glad you admit this because it clearly frames the debate between the sides. You don't believe the state should spend money on educating 4-year-old children whose parents have a tough time paying for such education. You probably also don't believe the government should tax its citizens to pay for health care for children, poor people, and those over 65 (Medicaid and Medicare) or pay for pensions for older people (Social Security).

Here's my only request -- run on it. Encourage all of your candidates to advocate clearly and strongly these positions. Please run Republicans who have the guts to stand up and say "Let's end Social Security and Medicare as we know it." Have the next GOP candidate declare pre-K plans to be forms of Soviet socialism. Continue to sponsor resolutions calling for the privatization of Social Security. Best of all, call for an immediate end to the massive government programs of Medicaid and Medicare. Please, please, please make these the foundations of your platform.

Why? Because these programs have the broad support of the people. Citizens in this country have come to expect that when they turn 65, the government will pay for most of their health-care needs. They expect to pay FICA payroll taxes and receive defined benefits in their 60s. And most think that educating 4-year-olds is money well-spent.

I think that's the main problem with the Republicans in Arkansas. The right-wing social positions they advocate make people uneasy, and most of the issues they run on -- gay marriage, gun control -- have pretty much be decided already.

That leaves Reagan-style fiscal conservatism and tax-cutting to lean on. And quite frankly, while people talk making government smaller, when it gets down to the particulars, people balk. They are willing to pay taxes to pay for Medicaid and education programs. Most voters are over 50, and many are over 65. Go talk to them about scaling back government programs and see how they look at you. That's why the grocery-tax failed at the ballot box in 2002.

6:44 AM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, Mark, I just don't get the hostility toward pre-school in particular. Do you believe the state of Arkansas shouldn't provide public education, in general? If that's you're belief, you're more radical than I thought. If not, then why not free preschool to families making less than $60K per year? And let the rest of us pay for it? You're setting up a false dichotomy -- preschool means women are forced into the workplace, while no preschool means they stay home. I doubt there's any evidence that a paid pre-K programs increase the numbers of women working outside the home. If so, I'd like to see those stats.

I think your objection is more philosophical -- you just don't want another government program, regardless of the merits of the program itself. If that's the case, fine -- and please, like I said before, run on it. Encourage Jim Holt to run again and make shutting down free pre-schools a major priority. Buy ads clearly articulating that position. He'll get clobbered every time.

6:54 AM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

from Mark Moore: "BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WANT AND WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR CHOICE."

Mark, thanks again for demonstrating how wedded you are to ideology when the facts shoot holes through your intended theory.

Studies show that a dollar invested in pre-k returns up to $10 back to the state.

Investing in pre-k SAVES taxpayer money.

But since you're a moron, you should continue to pay higher taxes while we enjoy a return on our investment.

You're a selfish little man. You only care about yourself. That's what it boils down to. Even though your fear that s government program could cost taxpayer money actually saves taxpayer money.

Seriously, stop being so petty and selfish, bringing every debate down to the least common denominator when even facts prove it wrong.

8:59 AM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Studies show that a dollar invested in pre-k returns up to $10 back to the state."

What "studies?"

Who conducted them? What were their methods? Were they objective? Where can these so called "studies" be found?

9:53 AM, November 20, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

Hey gutless, let me clue you in on some blog etiquette (which I realize will more than likely be as effective as lecturing a pig on grooming).

If you don't have the guts to post your name or at least use a consistent blogger handle, then you shouldn't hurl personal insults at someone like Mark who does.

11:39 AM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What "studies?"

...crickets...

That's what I thought you liberal bozo, THERE ARE NO SUCH STUDIES!

12:46 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are multiple studies. try googling it... idiots.

2:06 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I assume y'all can read. alhtough i'm beginning to wonder of you're just having this stuff read to you and your dictating what you would like typed.

this has a compilation of studies, included:

http://www.winningbeginningny.org/brochure/documents/belfield_execsummary.pdf

2:10 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you don't have the guts to post your name or at least use a consistent blogger handle"

Oh, and you're the blog etiquette king, are you - "Toast"?

Laughable.

Here's my new consistent blogger handle:

-Mark Moore and Toast are Complete Idiots Preaching Fear, Disinformation, Bigotry and Explouting the Bible for Their Own Gain

2:18 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By way, the poster who said there are no studies... please google Pre-K and study. You'll find dozens of studies all reaching the same conclusion.

Pre-K saves taxpayer money. And by the way, not that you care, it is good for the educational development of our children.

With warm regrards,

-Mark Moore and Toast are Complete Idiots Preaching Fear, Disinformation, Bigotry and Exploiting the Bible for Their Own Gain

2:21 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Moore and Toast are Complete Idiots Preaching Fear, Disinformation, Bigotry and Exploiting the Bible for Their Own Gain:

Might I suggest an acronym? Such as MMTCIPFDBETOG. It would save you typing time. Ha!

2:50 PM, November 20, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I've already researched this. Those studies that show the supposed great benefits of Pre-K are flawed. The common denominater for later success was involved parents, not the presence or abscense of a pre-k program (whose educational impact disapeered in a few years).

There are lots of special interests telling out leaders "we have studies that show you will get a great return if you take a bunch of money from other people and give it to us."

The Perry Project is the one study that those pushing for pre-school most hang their hats on. That study has never been replicated, and many of its claims have been refuted.

The Cato Institute Notes: “It wasn't long before independent peer reviewers uncovered sizable sampling and methodological flaws in the Perry study. For example, preschool participants, but not the control group, had to have a parent at home during the day, which might have inflated the Perry findings. More important, in three decades the Perry results have never been replicated.”

The claim that it increases cognitive ability has been refuted. The claim that it increases earnings has been refuted. (The survey had so many non-responses on income that the remaining figures were meaningless.) It was done on one small sample group (58). Every participant in the study had to agree to have a parent at home all the time (with 11/2 hour a week training sessions for the parent.). However, there were at least two instances where children were moved from the test group to the control group when the parents were not at home all the time. It appears that the control group was not held to the same home condition of having a parent present in the home throughout the period of the study. Only the test group was held to the condition of having a parent committed to education in the home full time. Thus, it is impossible to say whether any positive results in the test group were from preschool, or from the weekly coaching visits with the parent in the home, or simply from the presence in the home of a parent committed to education.

Positive effects that were detected in the test group were girls were more likely to finish high school and boys were less likely to have multiple serious arrests. There was no lasting effect upon academic ability, or on earning power later in life. There was a difference in attitude of girls toward school. They were no better at learning, but they were more committed to it. Was this a result of the preschool, or a parent in the home, or the home visit, or a result of feeling that they were a part of something special as a result of the study interviews? If the latter, is the effect replicable on a large scale when they most definitely will NOT be a part of something special, and their will be no researcher interviewing them on an almost annual basis.

How likely is it that a boy is less likely to commit crime between the ages of 19-27 due to a pre-school intervention that had no significant effect on their late elementary, middle school, or high school careers?

I am convinced that the same results can be accomplished with much less money in public schools by returning stronger discipline, as they are doing at the KIP school.

4:15 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So much for teaching a pig grooming.

4:16 PM, November 20, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

6:44 why don't you address my actual arguments rather than setting up a bunch of scarecrows which you write my name on so that you can then knock them down?

Social Security and the like are not welfare, more like a government-sponsored insurance program. As long as it is spreading risk instead of redistributing income as a primary function, you can't call it welfare.

I taught public school for 12 years. I am all in favor of the concept, but against what they are doing with it. That is two very different things.

Children learn mostly by play until five or so. Only after that does cognitive development reach the point where an academic setting is most profitable.

I understand that the best choice for most families as the child gets older is to send them to a community school. At some age that is the usually appropriate decision, assuming the liberals have not destroyed the community school. We don't have a disagreement on that. The disagreemnet is on what that age should be. You say you have "studies" that prove pre-school is a great return on investment. When challenged to produce such studies, you wave your hand and tell us to google it. I already have. I researched this throughly, You have no valid studies.

We cannot have a rationale debate about social policy if your reflex response it to impugn the movtivation of the other person. Not everyone believes that compassion can only be dispensed from a government machine, with forms typed up in triplicate.

4:27 PM, November 20, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

hey 2:10, your link came up "not found".

You have no VALID studies that pre-K is a good investment for children from functional homes (the answer is to help get better homes, not better government-child rearing).

I have seen a couple that TRIED to make that claim, from liberals with an agenda to get public funding, but on scrutiny, the crediblity of the study evaporates.

4:30 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm the guy who sent his kid to a pre-K program, and thought it was worthwhile. I make more than 200% of the poverty line and I paid for it myself."

I doubt you paid for all of it. The buildings, teacher salaries, materials. It was still likely a highly subsidized program. If that is all you want to do- pay for your own pre-k of your own choice, then we don't have a problem. That is not what you did and not what you want.

4:37 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear 2:50,

Thank you!

-MMTCIPFDBETOG

(although it's not as fun)

5:32 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Moore (Moderator) said...
hey 2:10, your link came up "not found".


Dear Mark:

How STUPID ARE YOU?!!! Google Pre-K and studies and you'll find dozens!!!

AAAAaarrgghhhh!!! You IDIOT!!!


-Mark Moore and Toast are Complete Idiots Preaching Fear, Disinformation, Bigotry and Exploiting the Bible for Their Own Gain

5:34 PM, November 20, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Hmmmmm. You seem to be very upset that someone expects you to produce actual evidence of your claims. Apparently, if we don't all accept what you say at face value, we are "idiots".

When the one link provided turned up broken, YOUR team were not "idiots" for failing to produce a working link, but somehow MY team ARE "idiots", for daring to not accept your claims without scrutiny.

You seem to have a "faith based" pre-K policy going here. The faith is supposed to be in your innate correctness. Requests for documentation are written off as idiocy or apostasy. I'll stick with the God of the Bible, thank you.

Ronald Reagan was right about liberals. He said, "It is not that our liberal friends are stupid, its just that they know so much that isn't true."

You know a lot that isn't true about pre-K, and you become angry and hurl personal insult at someone who doesn't "know" the same untrue things which you "know".

6:10 PM, November 20, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

They can't even get their acronym right. Actually, I was impressed he even knew the word "acronym."

6:59 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7:56 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

again...i'm not convinced you can read, Mark.

look:

Dear Mark:

How STUPID ARE YOU?!!! Google Pre-K and studies and you'll find dozens!!!

AAAAaarrgghhhh!!! You IDIOT!!!


-Mark Moore and Toast are Complete Idiots Preaching Fear, Disinformation, Bigotry and Exploiting the Bible for Their Own Gain

8:11 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.educationatlas.com/head-start-programs-enhance-childrens-development.html

http://www.apa.org/releases/headstart110205.html (same study but better organized page)

http://www.ced.org/docs/report/report_ivk_belfield2005.pdf

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwexa/news/archive/policystudies/05_1212PreKStudy.htm



That'll get you started.

8:29 PM, November 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Moore-on:

Here's another study -- funded by Entergy of Arkansas!

They're local. And they're business. What Moore could you ask for?

http://www.state.ar.us/childcare/education_book.pdf

Feel free to write us back and admit that you are wrong and we'll all leave you alone.


Your friend - Not,

-Mark Moore and Toast are Complete Idiots Preaching Fear, Disinformation, Bigotry and Exploiting the Bible for Their Own Gain

8:37 PM, November 20, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

You're wrong. You have no case, but a great marketing department. They have wrapped a pretty bow on an empty box.

Did you even read the document? It was NOT a study. It was a REPORT on the results of other studies, which did NOT include their methodoligies.

Though they quoted lots of studies, only ONE of those studies was even testing the hypothesis that pre-K leads to success in later life. The others were simply measuring things like how much worse off is a person who does not get a high school diploma over one who does.

And what was that ONE study that they quoted over and over again? Why, the Perry School Project in Ysplanit Michigan! That's right. The one that I and the Cato Institute and others have already debunked. Look at my 4:15 post. I give the Perry Project by name and give details about why it is flawed.

Once we shamed you into giving an actual study, and you still didn't because that Entergy bit was propaganda/report NOT a study, I knew it would be the Perry Project. That is why I took the step of pre-debunking it. You have ZERO valid studies that justify us making this huge investment and pushing kids out of their homes early. You only have ONE flawed study.

I had already read the Entergy report too. Entergy is in collusion with the government, who sets their rates. As a liberal, you ought to be appalled that a monopoly who wants a government-allowed rate increase spends money on stuff like this. I'm not a liberal and I am.

5:22 AM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who's name-calling now? You don't like the Entergy report so you bad-mouth Entergy? That's an ad hominem attack, also called "shooting the messenger."

By the way, explain to me how Medicaid and Medicare are insurance systems. They are welfare systems, plain and simple, which involve massive re-distribution of wealth. I support them because I think we have a moral obligation to provide government health care for old people and children. Do you? Does Jim Holt? Do you think we should tax our citizens and use those taxes to pay for health care for children and people over 65? Is Jim Holt planning a campaign where he'll call ARKids First Soviet-style socialism? I sure hope so. He probably wouldn't even get 39% of the vote that time.

7:09 AM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Moore,

You sir have again proven why you are such a disgusting person only interested in distortion, fear and exploitation to suit your own purposes.

When challenged on pre-k, you claim there are no studies to support it's positive economic impact and that upon helping children enter school ready to learn.

When provided with countless studies showing you wrong and ansewring your charge, you dismiss them all.

You're a ridiculous, small man. As I have said, Google "Pre-K" and "Study" or "Impact" and you will find countless studies -- including independent ones such as that donw by Entergy.

You truly are pathetic. You won't accept the truth when presented with facts.

Crawl back in your hole. Or just run out to the woods to pass away. We don't need animals like you populating Arkansas with your hatred.

Hell, we don't even know how long you've been an Arkansan. All we know is what we've read on here: you were one of the 4 people who comprised the Constitution Party (whackos) and you worked for Jim Holt (whacko) and you have this (whacko) website.

I for one enjoy engaging you on this website because you're crazy and you deserve to be challenged.

But I sleep easy every night knowing that, aside from your cute website here, you're largely irrelevant.

Although I worry that you're the type of guy who would one day take his gun down to the local schoolyard and hurt a lot of people.

David Koresh could have used your help in Wako.

9:17 AM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on, Mark- admit it. You're posting the rants like the one above. No one can be that ridiculous!

9:21 AM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is Constitution Party in name only. You've disaffiliated from the national party right Mark? Isn't this just a Republican blog that is trying to regain some legitimacy by claiming to be above the two-party dominance? I imagine that Mr. Moore and his three friends were tired of being labeled as strict partisans with no desire for facts (which they are), so they started calling themselves the Constitution Party to place themselves above what they really are: Republican ideologues.

10:11 AM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark in all seriousness, I'd like to know a little bit about the Constitution party, its platform, its issues, and its organization in Arkansas. There is a lot of information and misinformation out there, especially with regard to Jim Holt and his association with the Constitution Party. Could you clear the air by telling us what's going on and speaking to these questions? Thanks!

10:13 AM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I'd like to know, too. Tell us about the COnstitution Party. I'd also like to know why Jim Holt fired you from his campaign early on...and then why you came back at the end.

You never told us why you were inititally fired by Jim Holt.

3:03 PM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Moore was fired by Jim Holt? LOL... talk about adding insult to injury. To be fired by Jim Holt is comical.

On another note, I had no idea Mark Moore had ties to the Constitution Party. I thought he was a Republican.

I am angry that this website pretends to be a Republican site but is actually promoting a Constitution Party agenda.

3:10 PM, November 21, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I promise I am not putting up these posts attacking me. There really are radical secularists dripping with that much venom.

To 9:17 You say "When provided with countless studies showing you wrong and ansewring your charge, you dismiss them all.

You're a ridiculous, small man. As I have said, Google "Pre-K" and "Study" or "Impact" and you will find countless studies -- including independent ones such as that donw by Entergy."

I say again for possible penetration: The Entergy document is NOT a study in the scientific sense of the word. Since you appear to be ignorant of the difference between a study and a report I will lay it out for you: Real studies state a problem, have a hypothesis, then describe in detail the experiment they conducted to test that hypothesis. They describe their methodology in such detail that another researcher could conduect the exact same experiment (with the goal of getting the same result). They then have a conclusion as to whether the results of the experiment supported the hypothesis or not.

The Entergy document is a report on other studies, only one of which, the Perry School Project study, actually attempted to address the issue we are supposed to be debating- does pre-school help kids acheive later in life. I have already shown, early on, that the Perry Project was flawed and cannot be used as valid evidence to support Pre-K. Your claim that I have "been provided with countless studies" is sheer delusion. An examination of this thread will reveal no such studies.

I am arguing with people who are screaming at me for refusing to see their hallucinations.

I object to all the ugly things you have said about me, but surely I cannot be a "Republican Idealogue". Clint Reed said the GOP was not supposed to have any more of those. I am not a member of any political party. I thought the GOP was the answer when I was young and naive. I once thought the CP was too. I never agreed with either of them on every issue, and the CP platform changed in ways that I was LESS in agreement with than I was in 2000 when I joined. I know what I believe, just not sure there is a party I can join that advances it right now. Holt was never a CPer, just lies spread by his enemies in the GOP to try to sabotage him.

3:48 PM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you not the CP chair?

4:09 PM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No. He USED to be chair. But he IS a former Republican candidate for the State Senate and a former Republican party officer. As the poster said earlier, CP in name only.

4:25 PM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So why did Jim Holt fire you? And then why did you go back?

You are obviously avoiding these questions.

5:11 PM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what we have learned tonight is:

1) Moore was once a Republican who ran for office and lost. Once a CP leader who claims not to be affiliated anymore (?)

2) Condemns all studies that contradict his radical positions

3) He was fired by Jim Holt and then taken back towards the end of the campaign (probably an act of charity by Jim Holt).

In conclusion: Moore is so nuts that he managed to get fired by Jim Holt and can't fit into any political party.

He is an island to himself. Bring new meaning to Lost.

5:16 PM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have got to hear this. What could you have possibly done Mark to be fired by Jim Holt?

5:37 PM, November 21, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

It seems you fellows have lost your taste for debating preschool. It is well. I am not willing to debate about myself. It is not about me, but the issues.

5:54 PM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This thread WAS about Halter. Who digressed?

6:02 PM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like we got you there Mark. Dodging questions about your own past. Sounds like a Republican through and through. Old habits are hard to break I guess.

6:11 PM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

looks like big mouth suddenly has nothing to say after being exposed.

Won't tell us about how pathetic he must have been to get fired by Jim Holt.

And now we find out he led the Constitution Party.

This blog has lost much of its appeal now that we are finding out it's being used by Mark Moore for a hidden agenda.

9:23 PM, November 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe Mark's just letting you blather in ignorance- which you've repeatedly displayed for us all here.

6:41 AM, November 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ahhh yes.. you mean we have struck a nerve.

i'd be a litle shy to share the details about why I was fired by Jim Holt and why I am a Constitution Party member.

8:13 AM, November 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who said he was fired?

Can't you use Google? Can't you read?

Back to pre-K for you!

9:35 AM, November 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, no... there are details they are hiding fromthe public that, if the truth came to light, would show that he and Jim Holt deliberately broke the law and hid it.

9:51 AM, November 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, google it. I would have to agree that there is something fishy going on and it looks like there was a cover-up.

this is from NWApolitics.com archive (that i found by googling):

Holt's Campaign Manager Quits!
In a short article that was buried in the Saturday edition of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, it was announced that State Senator Jim Holt's campaign manager, Mark Moore quit. Why? Well, in typical Jim Holt fashion he won't give any reasons why. You see, Mark had quit for "personal reasons." McClave doubts that sincerely. Mark Moore recently told a Lincoln Day Dinner crowd that he had "cashed in his life savings to work without pay full-time to help elect Jim Holt." (Smells like an in-kind contribution to McClave, but that's a story for another day.) No, McClave submits that Moore likely quit for reasons that neither Holt nor Moore want to have to detail in public.

Mark Moore is a former chairman of the Constitution Party in Arkansas. Moore has stated on multiple occasions that Jesus Christ should be recognized "in the platform" of the Republican Party. In a recent article penned by Doug Thompson of The Morning News, Moore said, "I try to lead a Christ-centered life, but the Republican party does not recognize Jesus Christ."

Since the GOP does not recognize Jesus Christ in its platform, Moore argues that conservatives should leave the GOP.

9:54 AM, November 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a Republicam and I have read with interest about Moore's ties to the CP Party, which he seems to have answered.

But I have also read about his relationship with Jim Holt. As well as the previous post from the NWApolitics blog.

It appears to me that there is more than meets the eye here. Something is clearly being covered up and Mark Moore should explain his actions and Mr. Holt's actions, as he did for the other things.

This item should be a thread of its own as well because it is serious enough to warrant it.

Something is rotten in Denmark. When people try to cover-up something, then one knows that something improper has occurred.

10:49 AM, November 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. Moore and Holt are covering something up. I think it's time to pull Holt's finance reports and see what we can find. We should also start reaching out to people who had contact with them during the campaign.

I don't know who brought this to our attention, but they should be thanked. This is what is great about blogs.

This never received the attention of the working press, but now after they read all these comments they will surely start looking into the allegations that one poster said have been sround for a while (I also heard the rumor that Holt's income was coming from another source which would be an illegal in-kind contribution. Didn't think much of it at the time, but after thinking about what happened and now learning about the cover-up, i have concluded this warrants scrutiny.)

4:36 PM, November 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're such an idiot. Mark spanked you on the original topic of this thread, so now you're trying to hide your bruises by talking nonsense. (By the way, you're fooling no one with your multiple posts).

YOU GOT SPANKED, LIBERAL! HA HA!

8:27 PM, November 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear 8:27,

What the $#@# are you talking about?

Time will tell. Moore and Holt have been quiet about their relationship and their arrangement.

I predict we will soon hear about a new scheme to make Holt and Moore money while exploiting hot-button issues and the people who genuiunely care about them.

Holt and Moore and the Constitution Party are all fakes more concerned about lining their own pockets than achieving anything.

10:50 PM, November 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You should probably change your tin foil hat. Obviously the one you're currently wearing has worn out.

8:33 AM, November 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I saw a demo gaz story about Debbie Pelley helping fund a j-o-b for Jim Holt. What as surprise. Jim Holt exploiting others to earn a paychcheck. Could you be any more pathetic?

Go earn an honest living, Mr. Holt. Stop exploiting people.

3:55 PM, November 25, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home