Baker Jumps in For Senate Race
As David Sanders predicted, State Senator and former GOP state Chairman Gilbert Baker has announced that he is in the race for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Blanche Lincoln. Previously, Baker had indicated that he would not run if two other candidates were running. That was then, this is now. They are both running, and now so is Gilbert Baker.
In the interest of fairness I should mention the other candidates for the Republican nomination, but to tell you the truth, there are so many that I can't do it from memory and I am feeling too lazy today to look it up. Will Baker jump out from the pack? Is he the right one? He has a strong network among state Democrats- some of them held a fundraiser for him. Does he know something about Blanche's possible exit from the race? Stay tuned.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Tuesday, September 01, 2009
24 Comments:
Gilbert has my support. Nobody else in the race is able to beat Lincoln.
Go Gilbert!!
According to the polls, at least two others already have a chance to beat Lincoln, and I suspect that list will grow if one of the other candidates makes a splash.
The race will be about Blanche Lincoln- if she stays in it. Any sane, decently funded candidate can beat her. If Gilbert Baker wants this, his team is going to have to do a lot better than "he can win".
Maybe that is code for "the GOP insiders in D.C. will fund Baker and they will let the others twist in the wind" would be more accurate.
Baker will be a formidable opponent: bright, handsome, articulate & a great public speaker. If he can raise enough money, and he showed he can in his last Senate race, he'll certainly get the RNC's attention & give Blanche plenty of sleepless nights, if she stays in, and I think she will. 2010 will be a Republican year, but that guarantees nothing in Arkansas. Arkansas is the last hold-out among the Southern states to convert to the GOP. (Is it any wonder we remain #49/50 and our unofficial motto is, "Thank God for Mis. . ." well, you know the rest.) Many people were saying how close Baker's last race was going to be, and in the end, he won handily. In 2004, Jim Holt got a respectable 44% against Lincoln, after spending a paltry $100,000 or so statewide. Baker raised and spent a lot more than that in his last STATE Senate race. If anyone stands a chance against Lincoln, it's him.
Anyone care to address my point that there has already been a poll done and at least three candidates (including Baker) fit the "he can win" criteria according to those numbers?
If several men (at least) "can win" then shouldn't we be talking about policy issues among the three instead of just saying one "can win"?
So why should Baker be preferred over the other two or more that can win?
Nothing will change.
Why should Baker be preferred? 1) He has legislative experience, at least as much, if not more, than Mark Pryor had when he was elected; 2) He has proven he can raise money; 3) His conservative credentials are solid; 4) There are still huge blocs of voters in Arkansas who vote a straight Democrat ticket, and it will take someone with Baker's background, speaking ability, and looks to overcome that against Lincoln; 5) If he can raise enough money, and I think he can, the RNC will direct even more money toward his campaign. Of course, a primary will decide who will be the nominee, but if the election were today, Baker has the edge, in my view.
Nothing will change? We'll see. An R elected in Arkansas (and other states) would signal a seismic shift in the political landscape Obama now faces. Recent polling showed that people who consider themselves conservative outnumber others in all 50 states,
which caused Obama to ask, "What about the other 7 states?"
and recent polling shows that most people don't like either party.
Nothing will change, because the GOP are one slice of bread on this crap sandwich some call government, and the Democrats are the other. You can sit around arguing which slice has more crap smeared on it, I say no thanks to the whole thing.
Anon,
So what are you doing to change things? If you see someone you like better than a Democrat or Republican then support them. But you can't just sit on the sidelines and piss and moan about how bad things are.
Now, I agree with Chuck. Gilbert is tested and conservative and for me is the best choice. He can raise enough money to get help from the GOP which is huge. My only concern is that so many are running in the Republican primary it could drain funds that will be needed for the general.
Huckabee entering the fray by holding a fundraiser for Curtis Coleman changes the landscape of a Republican primary somewhat, but Huckabee's Arkansas coattails aren't as long now as previously. Baker is still the favorite, in my view, but Huckabee's participation could turn the primary into a real contest.
Anon, Rick is right about either shutting your piehole or jumping into the arena & joining the fight. Complaining of the shortcomings of both parties does nothing to improve the country.
A spirited & clean Republican primary would generate widespread interest in the race. Yes, it would be nice not to have to go through the pain and expense of a primary race in May, & then a general race again in November, but it's actually healthy for the party. The best candidate gets chosen (usually), it generates interest amongst the voters, and it ensures the winning candidate stays narrowly focused on issues that matter.
You are the minority-- you partisan fools who insist on playing this mindless game as if you're cheering on a Super Bowl team. The rest of us-- the majority-- have had enough of this tail chasing nonsense.
Nothing you are advocating has helped this country. "Pissing and moaning" may not be a solution, but neither is cheering on the latest round of phonies looking to sell out the American people in an effort to please their party masters, pad their resumes, and make monuments to themselves. Do you know what the definition of insanity is, gentlemen?
To hell with your "solution."
If you think anon 2:20 goes too far, can you at least agree to stop, take a few deep breaths, and sound out these candidates on THE ISSUES rather than the horse race aspects?
Whoever wins the GOP nomination will have a chance against Blanche. She is that unpopular. So why should we pick ANOTHER politico who is in the establishment's pocket? Do you know for example, where either Baker or Coleman stand on TARP and TALF? Have they committed to voting to confirm only Supreme Court nominees who they believe will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?
If we don't get commitments from them on this stuff now, we sure won't later.
Calm down, resist the urge to get on the bandwagon first, and let's try to get the best deal we can from these candidates, in writing, BEFORE we commit.
Ideally, what should happen is that the voters hold their elected officials accountable in the event they don't vote in the best interests of the constituency. In other words, kick 'em out if they commit mis-, mal-, or non-feasance. However, in Arkansas, (and other places, of most recent note, Massachusetts; Ted Kennedy should have been kicked out long ago.) sadly, what actually happens is that, once elected, incumbents are darn-near impossible to oust from office, even when they go to D.C. and vote to raise taxes, redistribute wealth to able-bodied couch potatoes, grow government needlessly, increase regulatory burdens, institute worthless pork projects, and allow rampant fraud & waste. Voters in Arkansas have ousted only 1 incumbent Senator in the last 40+ years, Tim Hutchinson, even though he was the most conservative voting Senator we've had in probably a century or more. We'll see next year if they're ready to oust Lincoln.
Perhaps surprisingly, I'm familiar with the definition of insanity, and I'm also familiar with the adage, "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
Freedom requires individual responsibility and constant vigilance, and sitting on the sidelines saying "to hell with your solution" when you have none of your own will only allow evil to prevail.
Anon, I would surmise from your statement you've "had enough of this tail-chasing nonsense" that you actually caught yours. Congratulations.
You're a true believer Chuck-- a cultist whose irrational belief cannot be changed with facts.
Your religion gave us 10 years of Huckabee, who trashed this state for his own personal aims. They gave us eight year of Bush, the clueless frat boy who was so incompetent he couldn't even unite the country against a common threat. They've given us the bumbling Boozman who supported TARP and Medicare Part D and who has voted to add trillions in new federal spending. Tim Hutchinson who disgraced our state and heaped scorn upon the conservative movement.
But don't let any facts distract you and your fellow cultists from your hamster wheels. The rest of us, however, have work to do that does not involve your silly religion.
Anon,
It sounds to me like you have nothing to do but rant. Can you tell me who you are supporting in this race and why? If you are supporting someone other than a Democrat or Republican does that mean you are a cultist? Do you even vote?
Mark, What is your definition of an establishment candidate? Does Ron Paul fit into this category? He is Republican right? Didn't Jim Holt run as a Republican?
My definition of an establishment candidate is one who when push comes to shove will support policies favored by the big-money interests who lobby in D.C. even when most voters are against the policy.
Examples: Illegal immigration, the Bailouts, Federal takeover of public education, NAFTA.
On all of those issues and more, the voters are given only the illusion of choice. Establishment Republicrats vote together to screw the average citizen in favor of the people that they REALLY represent.
You mentioned Ron Paul and Jim Holt. Neither of them are establishment. They were with the people and not the corporate interests on all of those ISSUES that I named above. That is why they are constantly undermined by their own party.
It was absolute treachery the way Holt was left to twist in the wind against both Blanche and Halter. Neither of the candidates that Holt beat in the Republican primary for Lt. Governor (Doug Matayo and Chuck Banks) ever endorsed him by name. When the Democrats saw that Lt. Governor was the only race they could lose in 06, they dumped a quarter million into TV ads that told outrageous lies about how Jim Holt was going to take away their Social Security if he won Lt. Governor! It was ridiculous fear mongering but the GOP answered with nothing. We could not even get them to issue a (expletive deleted) press release.
Their efforts to stop Ron Paul are well documented. 23 Republican Senators are holding a fundraiser for the opponent of Ron Paul's son Rand, who is running for Senator in Kentucky. Name another GOP member of congress that would happen for.
Anon 9:02, I'm irrational? OK, I'll humor you and agree; I'm irrational & facts can't change my mind. I suppose, then, my continued existence in these United States, and participation in the process we're currently stuck with, is heresy, or perhaps treason. Either way, I'll continue with it and take my chances. In the meantime, you're free to move elsewhere.
PS: I didn't/don't agree with Hutchinson's personal behavior; in fact, I found it downright disgusting. That doesn't change the fact he had the most conservative voting record of any of our congressional delegation, before or since.
"That doesn't change the fact he had the most conservative voting record of any of our congressional delegation, before or since"
How pathetic-- and you're bragging about that?
Anon@3:43
Friend,
I am not your leader. You figure out what needs to be done on your own, and then do it. I'm merely here to tell you that the Titanic is sinking, and that rearranging the deck furniture isn't getting anything accomplished. No matter what I happen to be doing, or what I advocate others should do, that fact remains.
Admission is the first step to recovery. And insanity is, well...
Chuck,
I agree with you. I don't agree with Tim's personal behavior but conservatives cut their own throats in Arkansas by allowing a very liberal Pryor to win the Senate seat by staying home and not voting for Tim Hutchinson. Now Pryor will be in office until he gets ready to retire.
Mark, sorry about the oversight, I was the anon 3:03 post. Its hard to prove that the establishment, "your term", didn't support Holt. No Republican candidate in Arkansas gets help from the GOP and there is limited funds to go around from the RPA.
As to why Banks or Matayo wouldn't verbally endorse Holt by name I don't know, only they do, but what I do know is Holt wasn't treated any different than most Republican candidates running for office in Arkansas. There just isn't much money to be passed around.
Rick,
Remember brother I was there. I saw what happened. Some did get help, Holt was just not one of them. In 06 we were told all spare funds needed to go to Asa- who was a long shot, or went to this outside group that the GOP claimed that they had no control over that sent flyers in state rep. races.
The sad thing is that a relatively small amount of help could have had a disproportionate impact in the race.
The Democrats meanwhile, realized that there was only one state wide office they could lose, and so shifted money in for those ads. It was the brain-dead obvious thing to do, and they did it. The GOP did not. Conclusion, they were not really interested in an outcome that had Jim Holt as the only Republican in a state- wide office.
I telling you straight up, I am not lying to you. Getting the state GOP to issue a favorable press release was an ordeal. They were not there to help. Their "opposition research" was a bad joke and the only thing we tried to use turned out to be bogus. I questioned the material at the time, but we were assured that the stuff was solid. It was about Halter's property taxes.
Open your eyes my friend, please. Even if you don't like what you see, at least it will be true.
Mark,
I was there also in '06 and '04. I am telling you I didn't just here complaints from the Holt campaign but from other campaigns as well. I know for a fact the GOP promised a candidate, who was running for U.S. Congress, some money and never followed through. I know someone who worked for the GOP at the time who said not to send any more money to the GOP but keep it in state until the GOP started funneling money back into the state.
We all know the state Democrat Party has a lot more money than the RPA. So they can throw money where they want.
Bottom line is I didn't see Holt treated any differently than most other candidates.
I know the candidate you are speaking of. I am not claiming Holt was the ONLY one treated shoddily. Just that he was.
At least the candidate you mention was feted around the state and allowed to MC Lincoln day dinners, even those outside his district, to boost his fund raising profile.
Mark,
So that makes it a county decision not the RPA. In fact I asked him to MC our county Lincoln Dinner when I was Chairman but he couldn't because of scheduling problems. I guess you would have considered me
establishment?
I doubt it. Where are you on Examples: Illegal immigration, the Bailouts, Federal takeover of public education, NAFTA. My impression is you are on the grassroots side on most or all of those issues and more.
Wasn't your county in the first Congressional district? It's not the same thing. Where did Union County get the idea to have the 1st Dist. Congress. candidate MC their event if not the state? But hey, it sounds like he got treated shabbily on the state level too. It doesn't negate my point at all.
I don't know who your GOP worker at the time was, the one who pinned the blame on the national GOP for taking money from the state and not sending it back. I do know that Richard Bearden, Clint Reed, and one or two others got promoted up the GOP ladder and went away to regional positions or D.C. This despite a disasterous series of defeats ending with the sweep in 06.
That does not jive with the idea that the state guys were having friction with the national guys. They were doing just what national wanted them to, or they would not have been promoted after failing to deliver by the yardstick of elections won.
Post a Comment
<< Home