Sunday, January 31, 2010

Tough Recruiting Week

Your humble writer is in a bit of a blue funk this week. For one thing, this week is the decision point for college football recruiting. High school players across the country will sign letters of intent to play football at various universities. The Razorbacks are having just an awful time of it.

Their rivals are locking in one all-star recruit after another. Many SEC schools are signing classes of young football players that are ranked in the top ten nationally. The Razorbacks are running dead last in the SEC in recruiting this year. Even Vanderbilt is edging them out. That does not bode well for our grid iron fortunes over the next four or five years. We might get by with one weak class, but if we don’t do significantly better next year then we are in serious trouble down the road.

But that after all, is a game played with a ball. Politics has become a game played with the truth, and the consequences for not recruiting well are disastrous. It seems we have lots of candidates running for a couple of open seats, but quantity is not the same as quality. I question whether we the people are “recruiting well” in our efforts to get people of character and ability to seek out public office. And why should they? The system is such a mess, and the special interests are very well entrenched.

I can’t help but wonder if, for the Federal government at least, it is not too late for even good people to turn things around. And it’s not just me with the winter blues saying this. I heard House Minority Leader John Boehner just the other day say that “the federal government will not continue to exist” with spending at its current out-of-control rate.

Think about that. He literally said that the federal government of the Untied States will not exist anymore if it stays on its current path! And I see no indication that it will do anything but more of the same until the Chi-coms decide to quit loaning it the money that it uses to buy votes and pay off big donors. Maybe we better start thinking about how we could get on without them after they implode!

In related news, the courts have ruled that two provisions of the McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform” law are unconstitutional. McCain-Feingold was definitely unconstitutional, so much so that apparently even a federal judge could see it.

The two main provisions the courts ruled unconstitutional were the ban against candidate criticism in the days leading up to an election, and a ban on corporate contributions.

It is the ban on criticizing politicians before elections that I objected to. In principle I support a ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns. Corporations are not real persons, and they don't have natural, that is God-given, rights the way actual persons have. In spite of this, the way things are done now such giant artificial persons have more access to our political system than real persons do. Many of these corporations are global, not simply American, entities. They have no special loyalty to this country, yet they have inordinate influence in the political process. Big corporations are driving much of the government spending that Boehner spoke of as such a dire threat.

Contributions to politicians and causes should come from real persons only, in my humble opinion. With a few historical exceptions like the British East India Company, giant corporations are a recent phenomenon. Can government by, of, and for, the people can survive this new era?

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Gary North Writes Sarah Palin's Speech

Not that she asked him to. But this is what he would advise her to say if he were, and I thought it was a pretty interesting take.

Why We Stone Prophets

I did not write this. It was written by Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D. Here is the original. I re-post it here because I am struck by how profound it is.


“In polite conversation, never bring up politics or religion.” That’s the advice I was given as a child. And it’s good advice, too, if your aim is to be well-liked. Politics and religion are risky because they involve deeply held convictions, and if you happen to tred on the convictions of others, you get the same reaction that a dentist gets when his probe hits a nerve.

But politeness at any cost is not God’s style. The reason for this is that God is love, and love is more concerned about the welfare of others than with one’s own image. So if someone is on a seemingly pleasant canoe ride down a lazy river, love cares enough to warn the passengers that Niagara Falls is up ahead. “But everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.” Opinions don’t change the fact that going over the falls in a canoe will kill you.

Religious and moral choices are like this. They set one on a course that leads either to a safe harbor or over the falls. Sex outside of marriage, intoxication with drugs and alcohol, honoring Jesus but rejecting the authority of His Church, all these choices have very unpleasant, even deadly, consequences.

So God sends prophets (the Greek word means “spokesmen“) whose role includes warning people that they are headed over the falls. You’d think people would be grateful for the heads up. But often people respond to bad news by killing the messenger.

Why is this? Because the idea that we are basically “good people” whom God ought to appreciate, and that our beliefs and lifestyle are at least as good as all others-these are comforting illusions. When a prophet calls all this into question, we find it threatening and very uncomfortable. If the prophet is right, we have to change, and change always means pain, and we don’t like pain.

Jeremiah and Jesus both are dealing with people who think that they are “good people.” After all, they are God’s chosen people. They offer sacrifices. God is on their side. So they respond to Jeremiah’s warnings by eliminating the source of pain. They throw him into a muddy cistern and he narrowly escapes with his life. In Luke 4, Jesus the inhabitants of Nazareth want to throw Jesus over the hill. He eludes them this time, but ultimately gives his life for those who cry out “Crucify him!”

So if this is how people are going to respond, why bother? Why stick your neck out? Because people have a right to the truth, whether they heed the truth or not. The prophet’s responsibility is to speak God’s word as clearly and convincingly as possible. What people do with that word is not under his control. Mother Teresa was fond of saying that God does not require us to have success; he requires us to be faithful.

At first glance, Jeremiah did not have much “success.” His listeners totally ignored him, the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, and Israel was taken into exile. On Good Friday, it did not look like Jesus had been successful either. But 300 years later the Romans who crucified him were worshiping him, and the lives that had been forever changed were too numerous to count.

We who have been confirmed have been given a share in Christ’s prophetic anointing. If our goal is to be everybody’s buddy, we are going to have a hard time being faithful. The word that God commands us to share is sometimes comforting, sometimes disturbing. We must get over our fear of offending people and love them enough to tell them the truth. Of course, there is always the question of the right place and time. But if no place is the right place and the right time never comes, we can be sure that we are allowing fear of other’s opinion to get in the way of love. Love is not about being sentimental or popular. The love of God, spoken about in 1 Corinthians 13, is tough love.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Boozman In, So Says Arktimes

He looks like the world class blizzard we are having up here has simply delayed his formal announcement a few days. I guess there were not enough candidates in there? Maybe Gil Baker was not getting it done as the establishment's candidate?

The other name I keep hearing is Jim Lindsey. My prediction is that it would be a disaster for Lindsey if he got in. If a man has dirty laundry that can be aired, it will be aired in this business.

Is Trevor Drown a Government Agent Provocateur?

Trevor Drown is running for U.S. Senate as an Independent. He has a facebook page which claims that he is "the only conservative in the race". By any reasonable definition of conservative, this is not true. But his devotees seem to afflict blogs like this one with an almost religious zeal.

I have only met Trevor Drown once. It was at an early attempt at forming a network of Tea Parties in Russellville. The meeting was an epic fail and I think it would have been even without Drown there, but he definitely helped. A few people were so rude that I could not even finish my little talk. But perhaps the rudest was Trevor Drown. He clearly did not want that meeting to go anywhere, and suggested that I was "like ACORN" for even considering that the handful of conservative groups there form a loose association.

So was it just that he did not want the staunch conservatives getting together under any banner but his, or was there something else at work? I wonder. Many have written about the large numbers of government agents that have infiltrated patriot groups (and groups that are just full of idiot racists). The government is worried whenever the peasants start taking that "rule by the people" stuff too seriously.

In addition, Obama information Czar Cass Sunstein "outlined a plan for the government to infiltrate conspiracy groups in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks, as well as real meetings" according to a recently uncovered article Sunstein wrote for the Journal of Political Philosophy.

"In a 2008 article published in the Journal of Political Philosophy, Obama information czar Cass Sunstein outlined a plan for the government to stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.

“It’s easy to destroy groups with “cognitive diversity.” You just take up meeting time with arguments to the point where people don’t come back. You make protest signs which alienate 90% of colleagues. You demand revolutionary violence from pacifist groups.”

This is what Sunstein is advocating when he writes of the need to infiltrate conspiracy groups and sow seeds of distrust amongst members in order to stifle the number of new recruits. This is classic “provocateur” style infiltration that came to the fore during the Cointelpro years, an FBI program from 1956-1971 that was focused around disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents.

“Sunstein argued that “government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories.” He suggested that “government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action,” reports Raw Story."

Am I saying that I think Drown did not really grow up in Russellville? Not at all. Am I saying that I am sure he is working for the government to infiltrate and sow "cognitive dissonance" among conservative groups? No. I don't know that. I just know that if that was what he was going to do, then he would behave just like he and his inner circle of blog spammers do behave. Witness their behavior on this recent thread (if you can stand the tedium of their posting).

They work Drown into the thread when no one was talking about him. They refused to engage on facts, instead simply repeating talking points that don't answer the questions (for example on what ISSUES does Drown differ from, say a Jim Holt). Rather they cut and paste Drown's talking points, which are standard uninspired boiler-plate conservative stuff, then shift to personally attacking me for asking the question. Then they spam the thread with long posts about completely irrelevant stuff. By the way, at least one of the main Drown for senate advocates on that thread is from out of state. The people doing this don't even necessarily live here!

It sounds just like the tactics Obama information Czar Sunstein was describing.
Simply vandalize the online spots where your political opposition hangs out. Make opposition blogs such unpleasant and irrelevant places to be that the average person does not go there anymore. I cannot dismiss the possibility that the Drown effort is a false flag operation designed to discover who the real conservative extremists are so that they can be safely watched and put on a government list. At the same time, they have the added plus (from the administration's perspective) of brewing dissatisfaction with any GOP opponent of Lincoln and possibly even drawing off enough votes to prompt her re-election.

On the thread I referenced, the Drowner quickly dismissed Instant Run-Off voting, a real cure to the real problem of vote splitting that would really allow independents fair access. It did not seem he was interested in advancing a real solution, just in pushing an agenda that he could not defend with facts or logic. Classic symptoms of a hired agent who simply spouts talking points but does not have any depth because it is not their true beliefs. It's a theory. Drowners want this blog to talk about Drown. Here it is, talk about this...

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

What's Confidential, and What is Not

I know there have been huge happenings in Arkansas politics. My thing is analysis, not breaking news. The truth is that I don't know what I think of it all yet. There has been such a flurry of information, it is hard enough sorting what information is confidential and what is not. Sorry for the delay readers, things have been crazy at work.

Since I am looking for a new job, I could not help but notice that the left is hiring astroturf to show up at events and counter-act the Tea Party patriots.

Secure Arkansas Petition Locations

Secure Arkansas has set up with several businesses around the 3rd District to carry petitions. We hope this makes it easier for those who have not signed the petition to limit benefits to Illegal aliens over the age of 14 to get out and do so. Listed below are the businesses we have so far who have our petition available for signing in the 3rd Congressional District. Tell all your "registered to vote" friends, co-workers, and family to get out and sign the petition. We need 100,000 signatures by May 31, 2010 for this to get on the ballot in November.


Pawn USA, 2310 W. 14th, 479-271-2214


King River New and Used Guns, 294 Hwy. 143, 870-423-6107, from 8-12am M-F

Bella Vista:

Village Quilting, 2902 Bella Vista Way (across Hwy 71 from Sugar Creek Plaza), 479-855-3800

Pea Ridge:

Black Hawk Grill, 467 Lee Town Road, 479-451-9940


Firesale, Kingston Square, 4404 W. Walnut, 479-636-3473

Ivan's Meat Market, 2101 N. 2nd, 479-636-3636

Pawn USA, 901 S. 8th, 479-631-221


Debbie's Beehive, 1772 W. Sunset Ave., 479-750-1907

Monday, January 25, 2010

Tuesday Night: Patriots on Watch Net Radio- "What's Wrong With The Fair Tax?"

Tuesday night from 9-10PM, or catch it on archives later. I will deconstruct the worst great sounding idea on the right, the so-called "fair tax".

Friday, January 22, 2010

Brummett on Baker

John Brummett is entitled to his own opinions, wrong-headed though they may be, but he is not entitled to his own facts. When he makes mis-statements of fact that give people inaccurate ideas of what is going on, he should be called on it. I volunteer for that community service here. For no extra charge, I will also demonstrate how bad his opinions are...

Brummet writes "If the Republicans don’t nominate state Sen. Gilbert Baker of Conway, the only conventionally gifted politician in the current nine-man field, then they’re nuts. And I write that knowing it hurts Baker with Republicans every time I say it. But I’m just telling the truth and letting the chips fall."

Brummett may know that as a known liberal/establishment attack dog he hurts Sen. Baker with GOP voters every time he praises him, but Baker does not seem to know it! The former state Republican Party Chairman and "conventionally gifted politician" used some of Brummett's favorable quotes about him in his campaign materials! How gifted can he be when Brummett is more attuned to Baker's alleged base than Baker himself?

Brummett gets it wrong on the facts when he was writing about the fallout from a radio forum that four of the candidates had last Saturday. Of the "conventionally gifted politician" Baker he noted: "you had Coleman’s campaign saying that Baker was just running for the Senate so that he could turn around and resign after four years and go for the job he really wanted, which was governor......Then you had Baker explaining that was some sort of ancient quip"

Brummett gets it wrong again on that last point. Truth is that Baker said nothing to indicate the accusation was "an ancient quip". He actually fumbled around and never answered the question at all. Instead he went into a long distraction about why he can't run for Governor this election cycle. I am sure that you know I am telling you the truth about Baker's non-answer, and Brummett is telling you wrong, but if you want to hear Baker's non-answer with your own ears here it is....

I urge you to listen for yourself and decide what you think of this "conventionally gifted politician" and the accuracy of the columnist who pumps him up.

Courts Undo Some McCain-Feingold

The two main provisions the courts ruled unconstitutional were the ban against candidate criticism in the days leading up to an election and a ban on corporate contributions.

McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional, so much so that apparently even a federal judge could see it. What amazes me is that John McCain couldn't, and that he still won the Republican nomination for President after co-sponsoring it.

It is the ban before the election that I object to. In principle I support a ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns. Corporations are not real persons, and they don't have natural, that is God-given, rights the way actual persons have. In spite of this, the way things are done now such giant artificial persons have more access to our political system than real persons do. Many of these corporations are global entities. They have no special loyalty to this country, yet they have inordinate influence in the political process.

Contributions to politicians and causes should come from real persons only IMHO.

Boozman To Jump in U.S. Senate Race?

Will Congressman John Boozman become the 10th Republican in the U.S. Senate race? That's the word, and it if it goes down it could cause a domino-effect of race changes. Asa Hutchinson is reportedly interested in Boozman's old seat, unless brother-in-law Senator Kim Hendren switches from the crowded senate field to Congress first. Or maybe that's the other way around. The next Hutchinson family gathering should be an interesting one. Roger's Mayor Steve Womack, with his characteristic bluntness, has said if Boozman jumps, then he is interested in running.

Is this all too hard to keep up with? It is for me too. Jason Tolbert of the Tolbert Report has more details, as his blog covers about every important story, except the story below this one which shows that Jim Holt polls best against Blanche Lincoln in the U.S. Senate race, and that for the first time ever Blanche is leading some of the other GOP contenders who were topping her in all previous polls.

Boozman had his own troubles in the Congressional race, as Gen. Bernie Skoch is running hard against him in the GOP primary. His main issue was that Boozman is a staunch supporter of the big bank bailouts. If he is the nominee, the GOP loses one HUGE crossover vote issue with Blanche Lincoln. I assure you she can spin health care socialization with the crossover voters a lot easier than she can defend bailing out Chase-JP Mogan and Goldman Sachs. With Boozman, she won't have to.

My opinion of the timing, even though Boozman has said he will not decide until the end of next week, is to take headlines from the first senate poll with Holt in the race.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Poll Position

Poll position leaders know how to connect with grassroots voters.

Arkansas News commissioned a poll (Mason-Dixon)of the U.S. Senate Race. It shows Senator Blanche Lincoln still popular enough among Democrats to likely be safe from an intra-party challenge, but faring poorly against top Republicans. This poll gives Lincoln somewhat higher numbers than recent Rasmussen polling, which showed her trailing all possible challengers, but the results are still not good news for the Senator. This is especially true since undecideds tend to break against the incumbent.

This is the first poll we have seen that polls Lincoln against former state Senator Jim Holt, who challenged Lincoln in 2004. Holt has the widest margin against Lincoln. The results breakdown like this....

Holt 43, Lincoln 37
Baker 43, Lincoln 39
Coleman 39, Lincoln 40
Reynolds 38, Lincoln 41
Cox 38, Lincoln 41
Hendren 38, Lincoln 43

Margin of error +/- 4.

Baker Has A Right to Change His Mind

The Gilbert Baker for U.S. Senate Campaign released this statement Wednesday....

“Congratulations to Scott Brown for his impressive win in Massachusetts. Even President Obama himself couldn’t stop the will of the people, painting the bluest of the blue states red. The huge voter turnout is a clear indication that the wave of discontent among voters is at an all time high. Bay State voters, like people across America, are fed up with Obama’s big-government agenda and are speaking from the ballot box. I will be a check and balance to the democratic leadership in Washington. Blanche Lincoln should look at this and realize if Democrats can’t win in Massachusetts, she can’t win in Arkansas.”

Which is a change from what Baker has been saying this whole campaign, and as recently as the previous Saturday. At the Mountain Talk 97 Candidate forum Baker was still trying to play the old "vote for me because I can raise the money to win" card.

Conrad Reynolds and Jim Holt both disputed the claim, saying national money from some faction of the GOP will come to whoever gets this nomination. Unlike 2004, people are onto Blanche now. Holt, despite his proven crossover voter prowess, declined to play the "I am the one who can win" card by saying he thought all four of the candidates there could beat Blanche Lincoln now. It was in effect telling voters to vote for the one you think is best, instead of letting a spurious "I can win" argument pressuring voters to pull the lever for someone they trust less. One of the debate moderators closed the forum by saying she also thought any of them could beat Blanche. After looking at those dreadful Lincoln poll numbers that (Baker's campaign manager) Clint Reed did for Roby Brock, maybe Baker sees it that way too.

Thanks to an alert reader brought this story to my attention. At any rate, Gilbert Baker has a right to change his mind. This re-assessment, if that is what it is, does not mean anything nefarious IMHO. It just means Baker needs a new game plan horse-race wise. Holt is going to make the case that voters are free to vote for the one they know they can trust to stay staunchly conservative. I suppose we will see what the Baker counter is shortly.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Scott Brown Victory and Illegal Immigration

One under-reported aspect of the Scott Brown victory was that he campaigned hard against illegal immigration. The voters knew it, but the nation mostly does not. Americans for Legal Immigration endorsed Brown "due to his focus on the issue of illegal immigration..."

Even in Massachusetts, in these hard times working people don't like losing their jobs and getting their wages undermined by illegal aliens. And its a good bet that a lot of the illegal aliens in that state are of European origin.

This is a crossover-vote getting issue. Now, will Brown stick to his campaign promises on the issue? I don't know. I can't trust any politician who is "pro-choice" very far. If they are willing to trade the rights of the unborn away they will be willing to trade your rights away too when they can get away with it. The pro-life ones you can trust are the ones that mean it, that is to say about half of them!

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Net Radio Tonight: Patriots on Watch

Join us from 9-10PM tonight, or catch us on the archives later. POW net radio will talk with the Jeannie Burlsworth, the Director of Secure Arkansas. Other topics include the problem of celebrity worship; Obama's information Czar's plan to "cognitively infiltrate" online opposition groups; The Republican Record on Growth of Government; and the ominous Council of Governors.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Tea Party Turmoil

A number of volunteers organizing an event which bills itself as a "national" Tea Party in Nashville have quit the group. They claim the organizer is part of a GOP effort to hijack the movement.

The Stimulus Plan is Working!

Goldman Sachs Bonuses to Increase by 81%!

If you are not angry yet, what the heck is wrong with you?

Looks Like Halter Polling

By the Content of Their Character

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." M. L. King Jr.

Today is Martin Luther King Day. Unfortunately, we don't live in the world Dr. King dreamed of, and we are getting farther from that dream every day. I don't mean the part about not judging people by their color. We have made great progress since the 1960s on that score. I mean the part about how he did want his children to be judged- by the content of their character. Unfortunately, moral relativism and political correctness have made "tolerance" some kind of new god that we all must bow down to. It is considered "intolerant" to judge people by the content of their character.

The second part of King's dream languishes. Even if his children made choices with their lives that displayed admirable character, it would be considered offensive to mention it. This is because it would cast a negative light on those who made other choices. If, for example, his children were sexually chaste until marriage, we dare not dwell too long upon that as a virtue for fear of offending the legions of single mothers out there. Even those who never married and have children from several fathers.

The result is that the biggest threat to the prosperity of black America is not racism, but "illegitimacy". 70% of black births are to unwed mothers. The rest of America is catching up and if we don't change course soon we risk becoming literally a nation of what used to be called bastards. Now even the term "illegitimate children" is out of vogue on the grounds that "no child is illegitimate". Fair enough, but can we at least use the term "illegitimate parents" to describe whoever won't own up?

As it stands now, we can't even use terms that honor parents who do the right thing out of a fear of putting a "stigma" on those children whose parents did not do the right thing for them. But it is the parents who did the wrong, not those who recognize it. And without a label that sticks for it, more people on the margin will be tempted to act irresponsibly and saddle even more children with a burden that is still huge even when society lacks the moral courage to put a label on it.

Dr. King's dream is in trouble, but then, what else can we expect in a climate of moral relativism and "tolerance"? Marriage and commitment requires so much character, and since we are no longer willing to "judge" people for lack of character, avoiding commitment is the easier route for many people. Children are the victims, until they grow up and give us a dose of what we let them go through in the the name of not being "judgemental" of people's character.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

All the Hooplah Over Senate Candidate Forum

Almost half of the platoon of men running for the Republican nomination to unseat Senator Blanche Lincoln were on hand for a candidate forum sponsored by Mountain Talk 97 Radio and "The Blessings of Liberty" program. One of the moderators was a young man named Richard Caster, who is known as a Curtis Coleman supporter but who I thought did an even-handed job of moderating the event.

Me, I favor Jim Holt. I admit it, and it is going to show. Jason Tolbert from the superlative political blog the Tolbert Report, favors Gilbert Baker. I am not sure he has come around to admitting it, but it also shows.

At any rate, the two big dust-ups of the event seem to involve these two guys, who most observers would say are the two leading candidates in the race.

For the record, I thought Holt rambled too much and it was not a good performance for him. On the other hand, you have to compare him to the other guys, not how good he was compared to when he peaked in previous campaign cycles. He has always refused to memorize talking points, preferring to talk from the heart from whole cloth each time. Voters love that, but it occasionally leads to unfocused answers, getting off message, and even slips of the tongue. He basically just started campaigning a few days before, where as the other candidates have been doing this for months.

He has practically been a lumber jack for much of the last three years, running his own arbor service. His business timing was good, the area has been devastated by ice storms during this period and such services were in high demand. Still, that hardly prepares someone for total immersion in a political campaign.

Jim Holt's slip up was that he used the term "Dixiecrat" as a shorthand for southern democrat when it had a darker meaning from a time before Holt was born. Dixiecrats were racial segregationists who wanted to split from the Democratic party starting around 1948. I though he recovered and answered well, but here is the audio. I will let you be the judge....

I guess he is going to get a bunch of "prove you're NOT a racist" demands (as if anybody could prove a negative). No one will ever be able to prove it to a crowd whose definition of a "racist" is someone who disagrees with liberals. Anyway, the main point here is that I want you to be the judge and compare Holt's answer to his big dust up to the one below where Gilbert Baker has his issue. You tell me who you think handled it best....

Baker was asked by Conrad Reynolds if it was true that he told a panel on the Washington County Republican Committee that he (Baker) had a plan to run for Senate, then run for Governor in four years when Beebe is term limited out, and appoint a Republican Senator to replace him. Reports of such a plan had gotten around, and might explain some of the support Baker has among the more ambitious members of the Arkanasas Republican legislators. One of them you see, would likely have that plum on their plate.

Instead of directly answering the question, Baker spent most of the time talking about why he can't run for Governor NOW. A sitting state senator can't run for Constitutional State Office. OK, so we know why you won't be the one making the suicide run against Gov. Beebe now, but what about answering the question? You tell me how he did.....

Bisbee, Brummett, and a bit of Baker

Benton County Judge David Bisbee made the news again. This time the issue is that he used his own company, Valley Homes, to remodel the County Assessor’s and County Collector’s Offices. The job cost the county $15,433, a thousand dollars less than the only other bid we know of. Bisbee claims that he’s handing that particular remodeling company off to an employee and won’t see any of the money from the deal. Columnist John Brummett seems quite eager to excuse the episode as not a problem of Bisbee’s ethics, but rather his tendency to be “bossy”.

It amazes me the things that John Brummett can get worked up about and the things he attempts to excuse or write off. Judge Bisbee may be bossy, but lots of county judges are bossy without self-dealing, which is exactly what this is. When Bisbee hires his own company to renovate county offices using taxpayer dollars he is self-dealing, plain and simple. Brummett’s efforts to change the charge to the less-serious offense of “being bossy” is a poor attempt at a white-wash. This is not a personality issue, it’s a criminal issue. It’s a corruption issue, and this is not the first time Bisbee has been faced with such issues.

The fact that they got another bid that was a little higher before the self-dealing began is little more than a fig-leaf. This county is full of builders, remodelers, and sub-contractors hungry for work. Contractor supply centers are closing down because things are so bad in the building business right now. I know what I am talking about because I work at one of them myself (National Home Center Bentonville, Furniture Dept.) Does anyone expect us to believe that the County Judge made a serious effort to get someone else to bid the job before finding that his own firm offered the lowest price? Such a fairy tale is an insult to the intelligence of the voters in this county.

Also Dead on Arrival is Bisbee’s excuse that he is in the process of handing the firm over to an employee and “won’t see a penny” from the job. Poppycock. Whenever that firm get’s “handed over” there will be an exchange for value. The value of that firm just went up because it has a county remodel job on its books at a time when many remodel firms have to let people go and close down. Unless the “employee” is his son, I am confident that Bisbee will see many pennies from the deal. They will simply be from monies that his employee gives for the firm rather than directly from the monies that the county will give that firm for the job.

There is no way to justify what Dave Bisbee has done, but Brummett does try mightily to redirect attention. He even gets into the feud Bisbee has with now U.S. Senate Candidate Gilbert Baker. Baker is one of a host of Republicans running for the chance to replace the exceedingly unpopular Blanche Lincoln. Baker, though head of the Republican Party at the time, split the central Arkansas state senators off from the NWA senators to deny Bisbee a chance to be President Pro Tem of the Senate. The job went to the Democrat Baker cut a deal with rather than fellow Republican Bisbee. For his role in that bit of treachery (and perhaps some other episodes where Senator Baker has displayed some trickery) Brummett calls Baker a “back-stabbing little runt”.

Character aside, Brummett’s comment about Baker’s build is uncalled for. So is the unequal treatment of bad behavior.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Hijacking of Science as Political Tool Widespread

I know that Jim Holt kicks off his campaign for U.S. Senate today with a five city whirlwind tour, but hey we all knew he was gonna do it. Let's talk about something you may not know.

The left has hijacked institutions of science in order to use them as a political tool. This story on the abortion-breast cancer link is another example of that hijacking. The National Cancer Institute, doubtless with an eye on PC and grant money, skewed their data to claim that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. How did they come to that conclusion? By throwing out the majority of studies on the subject which concluded that there WAS a link!

It may be that the chairman of that panel has defected. She has now authored a study which shows there is a link between induced abortion and a particularly nasty type of breast cancer.

The public is going to lose faith in "science" because researchers are abandoning their integrity in a quest for grant dollars.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Patriots on Watch Net Radio- Education and Indoctrination

POW radio interviews Rural Community Association Director LaVina Grandon, the main topic is education and the soul-deadening consequences of centralization of power in education. Also, I cite a case in U.S. history where interposition worked to restrain the federal government.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Harvey Edwards on Gillett Coon Supper

What do US Senator Blanche Lincoln, Congressman Marion Berry, Senator Mark Pryor, Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe, and a host of other Liberal Democrats have in Common with the tiny Delta Town of Gillett Arkansas? The Delta is dying and so are the careers of the above mentioned band of scalawags. This didn't stop all of them from converging on this tiny town and taking over a school and community dinner, The annual Gillett Coon Supper.

The evening started for the Politicians and as many staffers as they could bring in all meeting at Congressman Berry’s farm outside of town. This occurs every year at this time. Democrats only need attend. The Liquor flows. and the backslapping continues until it is time for them to go slumming with the local townsfolk. Marion actually has someone guard his Sign and direct the other Liberals down the graveyard road to the Berry Barn for drinks, real food and lies.

The coon supper itself begins with the principal of Gillett elementary school discussing the purpose of the event. The Coach , who no longer has a team gets up and makes a plea for people to please move to Gillett so that he can maybe have a team someday. A local comic gets up and talks local stories with a good jab or two at the politicians. The local pastor gets up and gives a great sermon as Berry staffers stare around to see if anyone is watching them. This is where the local aspect of this dinner ends, wait not quite. Miss Arkansas gets up and sings two Broadway tunes. "I wanted to separate her from the politicians because local folks respect her more than to lump her with the Political derailment coming next."

Congressman Marion Berry our hometown US Congressman gets up and from here whenever a mouth moves a lie is told.

(rest on the jump)

Steele Yourself

Some Republicans are going after GOP national Chairman Michael Steele for comments he made recently in his book. My take is that he was just telling the truth. He was airing the complaints that the party is getting from the grassroots. A faction of the GOP has been after him ever since he got in. Here are some of the things he said that have got the long knives out for him......see if you agree.

He criticizes:

* President George H.W. Bush for raising taxes two years after President Ronald Reagan left office.
* President George W. Bush for not vetoing spending bills during his first five years in office. He calls Bush and other Republicans "enablers for big government" and derides the Bush administration's Troubled Asset Relief Program as "a massive government slush fund."
* Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the party's 2008 presidential nominee, for backing censorship of political speech through the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Steele says the GOP erred in allowing itself to be associated with "a national political speech code."
* Republican lawmakers in general, who allowed spending to rise from 2001 to 2004, went along with TARP and McCain-Feingold, and supported the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

Children's Trinkets from China Loaded With Cadmium


Wal-Mart Pulls Chinese Made Trinkets over concern about cadmium

Cadmium is a poison. Twelve percent of Chinese made jewelry items tested contained at least 10% cadmium. Wal-Mart among the chains whose stores were found to contain items with the heaviest levels.

Brummett and I on Highways

It is news when John Brummett and I agree on something. His recent column advocated something I have called for since 1998- the abolition of the State Highway commission. It has not served the state well. He also called for more turnback money to cities and counties. I favor that as well. In short, his highway plan sounds a lot like my highway plan would. Yes, I am scared.

I would add that some little-used roads should be assigned to cities and counties along with the revenue. It is ridiculous to call some of these roads "state" highways when 90+ percent of the users are local folks from the same county.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

A Republican Candidate for Governor at Last?


Jason Tolbert of the Tolbert report has been in contact with Tom Cox, and he denies the rumor. So does anyone know who the GOP is going to run against Mike Beebe?

Earlier we reported to you on the dearth of candidates willing to take on Governor Mike Beebe. Even the upstart Constitution Party (of whom I was once a member) says they will field a candidate for Governor, but we have not heard anything about a candidate for the Republicans. Rest assured there will be one, simply because to maintain ballot access the candidate of the political party in question must attain 3% of the vote in the November election.

I have heard a rumor, yet to be verified, that GOP officials have persuaded businessman Tom Cox to switch from the crowded U.S. Senate primary into the Governor's race. Cox, like every other name Rasmussen puts against her, polls well against incumbent Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln.

Again, this is a rumor. I am not reporting it as fact. Someone closer to Cox who he is not mad at for belittling his claim to be the head of the "Arkansas Tea Party" might try to get him to confirm or deny.

Saturday, January 09, 2010

Natrualistic Origin of Life Scenario Shot Down

The view that man is simply the result of chance evolutionary events gives government moral permission to attempt to mold and shape its' citizens to some desired outcome of those in authority. Other views of man, such as the classical position that he is a created being in the image of God with certain Creator-granted rights, set limits on the amount of meddling the state can do to the human psyche. Those in power might find this view inconvenient to their goals, thus it is not surprising that the bias of government sponsored "science" is to discuss the evidence favoring macro-evolution, but not that opposing it.

In the same way that evolution can give those in power a justification to concoct grand designs to shape their neighbor's form and mind, global warming can give them a justification for grand designs for their neighbor's property, industry, and habits. So it is once again not surprising that a balanced view of the evidence must come from outside the central authorities. 

Nevertheless, we can still get hints of the truth when government-funded researchers attempt to discover exactly how nature originated life or obtained the new genetic information needed for an organism to develop a simultaneous series of changes needed in order for a complex new structure to emerge and enhance fitness.

In the origin of life scenario for example, the idea of unaided emergence of life is so improbable that there are only two ideas with any support. One is that DNA and RNA emerged first and later developed a way to metabolize, the other is that the metabolism came first and DNA and RNA came along to support it. Those who hold to the view that metabolism came first base their view on the demonstrated impossibility of DNA and RNA emerging from a pre-biotic soup.

Those who hold to the RNA world hypothesis have now retaliated. They conducted an experiment on the ability of chemicals to evolve a metabolism without DNA and RNA there to help. The result was that they discovered a strict limit to the "evolution" of the system. That is, some early chemical reactions similar to some steps in the process occur, but after that the reactions start degrading and going opposite to the desired direction.

It seems the proponents of each of the two schools of thought have invalidated the hypothesis of the other through experiment. What is left is the theory of intelligent design. That is to say, life did not originate by chance, but rather through the work of a Creator.

If the world goes on long enough, I am persuaded that macro-evolution will one day be proven to be just as phony as man-made global warming is being shown to be right now. Both false ideas are being pushed with piles of taxpayer dollars by the supporters of our out-of-control central governments. These people have hijacked pure science and turned it into a political tool to justify their rapacious desire to accumulate more and more control and power.

Friday, January 08, 2010

Mark Martin Announces for Sec. of State

Well, you can't tell here that they had similar coloration, and Skelton did not have access to a blow dryer, but IMHO Martin bears a passing resemblance (in looks, voice, and zany sense of humor) to a young version of the late-great Red Skelton.
Not every Republican in Arkansas is running to replace the popular-as-a-polyp Senator Blanche Lincoln. State Representative Mark Martin "gets it" that somebody ought to run for some of those other state-wide offices. Martin announced for Secretary of State the day before yesterday. Actually, he meant to announce yesterday but a reporter asked him point blank if the press conference he called was going to be an announcement that he was going to run. "I couldn't lie to him" Martin said of the off-beat uncontrolled launch of the campaign.

What? You couldn't lie to a member of the media? What kind of a politician are you? Rest assured, they will lie about you if you don't toe the line. Actually that is just a bit of humor folks. He might want to practice giving non-answers, but I take it as a good thing that he is compulsive in honesty.

Martin is best known for the passion with which he supports limited government, a bent towards philosophy, and the aforementioned zany sense of humor. Like Skelton, he is frequently the target of his own jests. In the last session he backed pro-freedom bills that allowed people to buy raw milk and openly carry firearms. He also pushed a measure that would re-allocate existing education funding so that money being spent to educate children with autism and cerebral palsy could be used in a more flexible, parent-directed, manner. Those bills met opposition from entrenched interests who don't seem to trust regular people and their ability to manage their own lives without government direction.

Martin is also known for his live blogging of committee hearings via his blog "Off the Marble", which I sometimes use as a resource for my commentary.

There are five Democrats vying to replace outgoing Sec. of State Charley Daniels. Some guy from Conway whose name escapes me at the moment (it seems these days like every time four guys from Conway get together one of 'em decides he ought to run for something big) is also considering running as a Republican.

Evangelical Statement on Global Warming

This comes from Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, whose works influenced a lot of my thinking. I went ahead and filled out the endorsement of their Cornwall Declaration on Global Warming....

Grace and peace to you in Christ. I'm sure you're absolutely swamped with other concerns, so please forgive this demand on your time, especially if it duplicates an earlier request, but if you could spare just a few minutes to read An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming and, if you're in agreement, complete the endorsement form online, it would be a great help to us. Thus far we're nearing 500 endorsers, but we'd like to add more leaders to the list before making a public announcement. (By the way, we make provision for non-evangelicals to endorse without implying that they're evangelicals.) The Declaration is based on the findings of A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor, co-authored by, among others, Dr. Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama, Dr. Cornelis van Kooten of the University of Victoria, BC, and Dr. Craig Mitchell of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
In case you're interested, here are names of a few of the prominent people who have endorsed so far: Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Dr. Barrett Duke of the same, Dr. Daniel Heimbach of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Dr. Charles Van Eaton of Bryan College, Janet Parshall of Janet Parshall's America, Dr. Joseph Pipa, president of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Dr. Peter Jones of Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, CA, Dr. Douglas Groothuis of Denver Seminary, Mark Coppenger of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, and Dr. Robert L. Reymond, emeritus professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary and Covenant Theological Seminary.
The collapse of climate treaty negotiations in Copenhagen last week was welcome, and it was my delight to be there and watch it happen on the heals of "climategate" and the general collapse of the scientific case for dangerous manmade global warming over the last several years. Now we need to work together to prevent the United States from adopting similar policy on its own. Your endorsement of the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming will help achieve that.

Thursday, January 07, 2010

At Last a Solid Canidate for Governor, From the Constitution Party!

Conservatives across the state have been wondering who will dare to run against highly popular and well-funded incumbent Governor Mike Beebe. It seems like nothing that the national Democrats do wrong sticks to him. For a while now it has been clear that the Republicans have had trouble finding a credible candidate willing to step up and challenge him. Recently I got wind that the Constitution Party of Arkansas have what they consider a solid candidate to challenge Beebe. I called Constitution Party of Arkansas Chairman Tom Mayfield to discus the rumor.

I asked him first about ballot access. It takes 10,000 voter signatures for a new party to make the ballot. Mayfield noted that they had gotten the 1,000 signatures required for access to the Presidential ballot alone in 2008, and that they were now ready to "do what it takes" to step it up to full ballot access for their candidates. He indicated that they had a solid candidate that is leaning toward running for Governor, even if he has little chance to actually unseat Beebe. According to Arkansas law, if a political party has a candidate for Governor who garners at least 3% of the vote in November, that party gets automatic full ballot access in the next election cycle.

Mayfield was not ready to reveal the identity of his candidate, but did say it is someone who has "recently held public office and who has a real way with people". He would not say what area of the state that the potential candidate was from, but noted "we are not just a northwest Arkansas party. We want someone who would have appeal all over the state and we think we have them."

I asked about the fear of splitting the vote in a three way race and electing a liberal democrat with less than 50% of the vote. "If this candidate does announce, it may be the Republicans who are splitting the vote." Mayfield said. "Anyway, the Republicans would not be running a candidate to beat Mike Beebe or else they would already have one. They would be doing the same thing we would be doing, running a protest candidate to get 3% of the vote in order to keep ballot access for the next election cycle."

It was hard to argue with his logic on that one. Beebe seems bullet proof, so "splitting the vote" is not going to cost any conservative candidate an election. They will only be "splitting" about 40% of the electorate, give or take a few. While that may be true in the Governor's race, what if the CP fields candidates in other state wide races? "We are going to be prudent with where we run people" said Mayfield, " We want to minimize situations where a split vote costs a solid constitution-respecting Republican a chance to win". He agreed that some sort of a run-off system was going to eventually be needed so that people can vote their conscience without fear of vote-splitting.

As an example of a race where the CP was not going to field a candidate and risk a split vote, Mayfield cited the U.S. Senate race. "We think Jim Holt is going to win it, and our members tend to like Jim Holt" he said. Holt has not yet formally announced for the race, but is expected to do so on the 14th. Mayfield would not be pinned down on the idea of deliberately avoiding other state wide races (perhaps they have not been up for discussion like the U.S Senate primary has been). He did mention that state wide campaigns take a lot of resources, and that they wanted to run people in smaller races where they had a greater chance to win.

We will keep you updated.....

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

News Notes

Guess you should have read it first Blanche..... Sen. Lincoln rips Nebraska Senator for "bribe".

Anybody can beat Lincoln......Rasmussen polls her against four Republicans, and they all beat her by at least nine points.

Congressman from Georgia demands Obama provide proof he is constitutionally eligible for the office he holds. Of course Obama will not be able to provide such proof because he is not eligible.

Ron Paul interview on Maddow. Note how skillfully he avoids taking the bait.

Dissing Dismang? Did your humble host go over the top on POW radio in refuting Representative Jon Dismang's contention that candidates in this state who run against the Republican establishment are being "disingenuous"? Naaaahhhhh (but not all agree).

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Patriots on Watch Net Radio Tonight

From 9-10 PM tonight, or you can catch it on archives later. Mark breaks with his long standing focus on ideas and comments on the U.S. Senate race in Arkansas, especially on the Republican side. This is in the wider context of the balance between supporting ideas and supporting personalities. Also, what will the economy do in 2010 and beyond? Inflation, deflation, or a special sauce combination of the two? Also, Ron Paul is wrong about something, and its not foreign policy.

Holt Sets Date for Announcement

SPRINGDALE, Arkansas — Former State Senator Jim Holt, who led the GOP ticket in the 2006 statewide elections, will announce his candidacy in the 2010 U.S. Senate race at a series of events to be held January 14th.

Senator Holt will be flown to five campaign kick-off events in Little Rock, Texarkana, Jonesboro, Ft. Smith and Springdale.

Holt says that this election is about bringing the nation back from the brink. “Our government needs serious reform, and it needed it yesterday,” said Holt. “Unfortunately, Arkansas' senator has been busy contributing to the nation's problems,” said Holt, who cited incumbent Blanche Lincoln's cloture vote on the ‘Health Care Reform Bill' as a recent example. “She essentially told the people of Arkansas that our opinion meant absolutely nothing, and it wasn't the first time,” he added.

Senator Holt summed up the sentiment of voters statewide: “I don't think the people of Arkansas want to continue having a senator who is the tipping vote for socialist agendas. Rather, they want leaders who heed our Constitution and the various restraints which exist to prevent such agendas.”

Jason Sheppard, the Holt for Senate campaign's manager, said that the response to a prospective Holt candidacy has been nearly overwhelming. “We've clearly been given our orders: we've got a job to do,” said Sheppard, noting that the campaign received more donations in a set of fundraising events held last week than was raised in either of their primary campaigns in 2004 and 2006. “Both of which Jim won against multiple candidates without even a runoff,” Sheppard pointed out. “The number of hands-on supporters active in this campaign has also been impressive,” Sheppard added. “Things are looking very good for our team.”

Sheppard noted the difference between this election and the Holt/Lincoln election of 2004, which he also managed. “As a campaign, we're in a much, much more enviable position than we were in 2004. As a country, unfortunately, we're in much worse shape,” Sheppard said. “'We were largely unknown then, and many key people wrote the race off because of that combined with Lincoln's then inexplicable popularity. Both these factors have changed,” he added. “Inside and outside the state, the Holt team is blessed with a strong network of supporters who are eager to see a return to Constitutionally-limited government,” said Sheppard. “And Senator Lincoln continues to anger just about every category of voter in this state.”

Monday, January 04, 2010

Gilbert Baker Voting Record Documentation - Baker also sponsored the Bond Issue Bill

Gilbert Baker Voting Record Documentation can be found at this link. Some people questioned the voting records that Women Action sent out and posted at this link on this blog about Baker's voting record. The voting records for legislators from past years are hard to find because there is no way to link to them. It takes several steps to find them so Women Action Group has copied and pasted some of the major votes of the Senate that include Baker's votes on taxes and some controversial issues at the above link which is

In addition to Senator Gilbert Baker's votes that we highlighted in the article on this blog at the above link, Senator Gilbert Baker sponsored (and we presume wrote) SB 430 (Act 685) in 2005 providing for a statewide election on issuing tax revenue bonds (Referred Question NO. 1) This bill if approved by voters would have left "Arkansas in debt for decades to come," according to newspaper articles.

Citizens soon learned that because of veiled language in the bill, the Highway Commission would have had power to re-issue bonds for maintenance of highways up to the $575 million cap as many times as it wanted without further voter approval. This veiled language was a slick move to get around the wording of Amendment 20 to the Arkansas Constitution that guarantees the voters a right to vote on any state indebtedness. The amount of interest and bonding fees would have been $217 million or 37%.

Fortunately citizens were educated through the work of dedicated opponents and voted it down 68% to 32%, even though the bond issue was supported by the political establishment. Former Senator Holt fought this issue and issued a press release opposing it although he had originally voted for it. When he became aware of the veiled language in the bill, he began to openly fight against it.
A newspaper article summarized those supporting and opposing the bond issue this way: "Of the lieutenant governor hopefuls, Holt and political consultant Drew Pritt of Warren, a Democrat, oppose the measure. Rep. Doug Matayo, R-Springdale, former Republican U. S. Attorney Chuck Banks, state Sen. Tim Wooldridge, D-Paragould, and former state Rep. Mike Hathorn, D-Huntsville, support it."

Is this the candidate that you want to take Senator Blanche Lincoln's place? You may want to go back and study his other votes at the above links.

Sunday, January 03, 2010

Adding Up Halter's Sudden Silence

I have been trying to put the pieces together on Lt. Governor Bill Halter's sudden silence on jumping in the Senate primary as a challenger to Senator Blanche Lincoln. Lincoln is in trouble, and Halter had talked of jumping in. My theory is that the Democrats operate more like a cult. They get messages from on high and they dare not step out of line. The Republican party is wide-open, witness the large herd of Republicans who think that they ought to be the one to replace Lincoln. The party may have wanted a couple of those guys to run for other things, but they don't care what the party hierarchy thinks! The GOP has less to threaten them with and less to bribe them with than do the Democrats in this state.

I think Halter got read the riot act. He was told not to weaken Blanche with a primary challenge. The interests who find her useful are going to rally around their dependable tool. It was not all stick for Halter. The SEIU agreed to pay off his campaign debt for Lt. Governor. My feeling is that this was part of his price for staying out. Who knows what other conditions there might be. Bob Johnson and his talk of jumping in? My theory is that this was also to let Halter know that they were not going to let anybody challenge Lincoln, and if someone did replace her as the nominee, it would not be Bill Halter.

This is not reporting, it is speculating, but that does not make it wrong.

Friday, January 01, 2010

Marc Rosson Event in Logan County (4th District)

Got this from the Marc Rosson campaign. Looks like he is going to do the formal announcement thing...

"On Saturday January 09, the Official 2010 Campaign Kickoff for Marc Rosson, candidate for Arkansas' 4th District Congressional seat will be held at Six Mile Complex, located approximately 8 miles west of Paris on Highway 22. The event will be held from 1-3 p.m. Marc will be running on the Republican ticket as the conservative candidate. His opponent is incumbent Democrat Mike Ross.

Marc is a Christian and a proud American with values that are consistent with this area and Arkansas. Marc hopes that anyone who is concerned about today's political atmosphere and the future of not only Arkansas, but America, will come out and meet him and talk with him about their concerns for the future of our country. There are 29 counties included in the 4th district and with it being such a rural area it is hard to knock on every door of every county, so please come out and meet Marc and let him tell you why he thinks he should be our next U. S. Congressman from the 4th District.

Marc is not a career politician and is willing to listen and try to bring the 4th District Congressional seat back to the people. Come out and hear for yourselves. Help Marc put the people back in government and let Washington hear your voice by using your vote.

For more information about Marc Rosson please go to"

Revisionist Holt History

Before he even formally announces for the race, the looming candidacy of Former State Senator Jim Holt for U.S. Senate has drawn out an online stream of venom and vitriol from insiders and establishment types. It seems there are some in the Republican party who loathe the very idea of Holt jumping in. The comments are mostly a series of scurrilous lies and hyper-ventilated claims of the impending doom of the whole Republican party in this state (such as it is) if Holt is the nominee.

The lies are so insubstantial that most of them should not be dignified with a response. The shrill claims that Holt will drag down the ticket are recycled from 06. I want to set the record straight, because the players who are terrified of Holt are not terrified of him because they are afraid he will cause other Republicans to lose, but rather that he, the "wrong kind of Republican" in their view, will win. These alleged Republicans say they would rather see Blanche win that vote for Holt. This fits with an observation I have long had that the insiders of each establishment party get along with each other much better than they do the true reformers in their own party.

In short, they despise a man who is not for sale because in their hearts they know how they got their own money. A few (not many) of these are office holders themselves, and they say the same things that Holt says near election time, but they despise Jim Holt because he actually believes those things. He really believes what he is telling the voters. And he votes accordingly despite full-court pressure to bend. That group of GOP insiders despise Holt the way all that is counterfeit hates that which is real. For it shows them to be what they really are.

For some in politics, the real goal is to keep the loot restricted to the insiders. To favored businesses and causes. To them "conservative" means only that the people who have always run things (to the benefit of them and their friends at the expense of the general public) are the ones who should keep running things. Any man who who is not inside the club is a threat to their loot. To these rascals social issues are either annoying distractions from the important business of dividing plunder from the treasury, or just window dressing to fire up the rubes and get their group of looters in over the other group. A man like Holt, who really wants to cut government spending, end special favors to the well-connected, and let the people keep more of what they earn, is a real party-pooper. Why won't the man be "reasonable" and step into the inner circle? Its so nice and cozy in here. Look at the money you can raise if the insiders know you are one of them!

At any rate, in their efforts to derail Holt (and not only him, but in this state he is the best example) they are attempting to revise history. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind people of what actually happened so that you will be fortified when the bad guys try to use volume and repetition to attempt to revise history.

1) What Holt did in 04 was universally hailed as a near miracle at the time. What he did was get about 44% of the vote against an incumbent Senator who spent $4 million dollars when he only spent $150,000, got no help from the GOP establishment, and had to fight the newspapers to boot. As recently as last week no less a Holt critic than Brummett was still marvelling at that outcome.

The GOP insiders are now trying to spin that election as some kind of proof that Holt is a loser. David Sanders for example, wrote of the 45 year old Holt, "I think his time has come and gone". This was the day before Sanders accepted a campaign position for Stanley Reed for the US Senate race. Sanders did not mention in the article that tried to write Holt off that he was about to take a job in a rival campaign. The Reed campaign lasted all of eight days before its time had "come and gone" and Sanders went back to his newspaper job with notably attenuated credibility.

There are also claims that Lincoln did not spend much money that campaign. Again, she spent four million dollars against Holt's $150,000. The insiders are mostly liberal republicans who think that the key to winning "swing voters" is to go left. That mythical swing voter does not exist. The typical swing voter does not have a fixed ideology, that is why they swing. They cast their vote according to how they like people and who makes their case with the most passion and skill. Some of them are more conservative than the average NWA Republican. And Holt has gotten more of them to vote for him than any Arkansas Republican alive.

I don't just say that as a phrase, but as a mathematical certainty. In the 04 race Holt got more people to vote for him than ever voted for a Huckabee or a Hutchinson. He holds the record for most votes ever received by a living Arkansas Republican. It is simply impossible for that to be true unless Holt is able to get non-traditional GOP voters to vote for him. The charge that Holt is unable to attract independents and crossover voters is, with mathematical certitude, false. It is based on a misunderstanding of who most of these voters are and what drives them.

One last charge in that race is that Bush beat Kerry in Arkansas so it is not saying much that Holt kept it pretty close against Lincoln. This is pure spin. Kerry was a known Massachusetts liberal. Blanche is a known Virginia liberal, but it was not known at that time. If Holt had run against Kerry in Arkansas, Holt would have plastered Kerry too. Bush was from neighboring Texas, was the incumbent, was running against a liberal from a state Arkansans are dubious about, and Kerry quit spending money here once it was clear Bush would win the state. It is just not a fair comparison. Kerry wasn't even trying in this state.

2) Two years later, Bush was wildly unpopular and for good reason. Holt ran for Lt. Governor, and this time the establishment was going to fight him for it. They thought he had a chance to win. They sent in Governor Huckabee's floor leader, Rep. Doug Matayo, and Attorney Chuck Banks. Again came the accusations that Holt was too extreme to win and that he would be a drag on the whole Republican ticket. Holt won the three way primary without a run off, getting just shy of 56% of the vote while spending only 17% of the money spent in that race. The establishment types responded with their usual class and decorum. Banks never did endorse Holt as is customary for people interested in "bringing the party together". Matayo never endorsed Holt by name, saying only "I support the Republican candidate."

This just underscores the truism. When the establishment types start screaming that Holt is unelectable, to the extent it is true it is only because they won't let it be true. They won't hold their nose and vote for him like they expect the grassroots to do when they saddle people with another establishment hack. Instead, they get their tongues moving and join the opposition, all they while claiming HE is not a loyal Republican!

In the general election, there was a drag on the ticket, but it was not Jim Holt. It was Bush. People were so mad at him that they took it out on the Republicans that they could vote against. People did not know or care what a Lt. Governor did, they just wanted to send a message to Washington. I remember Holt being exasperated when his usual campaign magic did not work at bringing people over, "they are not giving me a chance, they don't like Bush" he reported.

His magic did not completely fail. Holt got more votes than any Republican in Arkansas in 06. What that means is that Holt got more independents who did not vote for any other Republican to vote for him. This again puts to rest the charge that Holt has no crossover appeal. Holt did not drag the ticket down, he dragged it up, but not enough to overcome the stigma of Bush. He had more crossover appeal than any Republican on the ballot. The problem was not that Holt was weak, but that the Republican label was weak. That's not Holt's fault. It is the fault of the insiders who have run the party both state and nationally, the same ones that are fighting Jim Holt tooth and nail. I want to ad that Asa Hutchinson and his team could afford to do polling, and they started showing up at Holt events all over the state. Would they do that if their polling data showed that Holt hurt them with the crossover voters?

When I say that Holt got no support from the state or national party, I want to emphasize that this is not true on the county level. The county committees were almost all staunch supporters. This might be expected towards a candidate who won 149 of 150 counties in two state-wide primaries. They gave what little resources they had. But the big money is from DC, and much of that flows to the state. It does not reach the counties.

In September and October it became clear from the polls that there was one race that was closer than the others, Lt. Governor. The Democrats saw that, and they dumped an extra $250,000 to help Halter by running a series of outrageous attack ads on Holt. Mrs. Holt and I asked then GOP Chairman Gilbert Baker for help from the party like Halter was getting from his. I asked him for this helped immediately after he bragged to us about how he just got back from Washington and had raised another huge amount of money for the state party. He then backed off saying that he had no control over how the money was spent.

I don't know that he was lying, but I didn't believe him then and I don't now. For all I know, even back then he had his eye on the US Senate race and did not want Jim Holt around as the obvious choice against Blanche, which he would have been if he had been the only Republican to win a state wide office. He has taken elaborate pains to give the impression that he was NOT going to seek the Senate seat, but there have been some puzzling cracks in that story.

Regardless, the point is that the state party was no help. We could barely even get them to do a press release for us. I am not kidding, they were that sorry. Their "opposition research" actually came back and bit us. It was on Halter's property tax. I kept saying that it looked like a misunderstanding, but they insisted that it was solid. They got Jim all fired up about it. It turned out it was a misunderstanding as I suspected. It made Halter, who has plenty of real dirty, look vindicated. The party slinked away, almost apologizing to him for bringing it up. To say they were no help is an understatement, they were a drag on the campaign.

The ads the Dems were running attacking Holt were so over the top that if we had had money we could have skewered them on the counterpunch, but we did not have it. It all went to Asa. He is a good guy, but they were putting all of their eggs in one basket, and a basket that was much less likely to make it to table than the Holt basket. The Democrats played it smart and shifted resources to the one race that was truly close going into the final stretch.

Some people think that Holt has already had two chances. Truth is, he has never even had one chance. He has never had the backing of the establishment because he sticks by his principles and gets in the way of what they are trying to do to grow government. He even tells on them sometimes. Just once, I'd like to see what he could do if he actually had backing from the party apparatus (as someone who wins the nomination is supposed to) instead of passive-aggressive resistance. I suspect I will never find out, but the good news is that the people are getting wise like never before. It may be that Holt and those like him can start winning even without their help. There are Tea Parties out there now, the internet is helping people get the truth out. Blanche can't hide who she is now no matter how much special interests give her to buy ads. This may be the year of the regular citizen, in that a guy like Holt can win even without the insider's help. And if Holt can pull that off, he will win and won't owe them one d@#n thing.