by Patrick Briney, President Arkansas Republican Assembly (ARRA): By May 18, 2010, Arkansas Republicans will decide which of eight Republican candidates for the U.S. senate race will represent them in the November general election. A runoff June 8, 2010 is expected between the top two contenders resulting from the eight contestant primary.For the most part, the challenge for voters will be deciding which candidate is more believable than the others. All claim to be conservative. All say they abide by Judeo-Christian values, believe in God given, inalienable rights, and self-government, decentralized government, national sovereignty, free enterprise, cutting taxes and wasteful spending, in the right to bear arms, in the sanctity of life from birth to cradle, in one man-one woman marriages, and in parental authority. All claim to possess excellent leadership skills.
The question that rises is this: if there is no difference, why are they running against each other? Obviously, each candidate must believe that they can do a better job than their fellow competitors. Each candidate must see some difference between themselves and the rest of the field. Will they state plainly to the voters those differences? Or is this a race for personal gain, status, premium tax funded health care, a wonderful pension plan, and all the perks that come with the office?
Conservative voters want change… conservative change. Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council sum the sentiment as Replace, Repeal, Restore. Conservatives want to send officials to Washington, D.C. who will reverse liberal legislation. They want more than party line Republicans who try not to rock the boat. They want more than representatives who only slow down liberal advances. They want reversal of liberal policies and shifting of government toward a conservative government. This requires more than saying what a candidate stands for. It requires a mind set to aggressively implement the conservative agenda.
In the Saturday April 17 debate hosted by television station KNWA, Curtis Coleman stated that he was prepared to initiate three bills as Senator: First, introduce a bill to balance the budget; second, introduce a bill requiring in every preamble of each bill that it be submitted for constitutional conformity; and third, introduce a bill requiring that it be read before it is voted on. He also said that he would introduce a bill to reduce discretionary funds by eliminating wasteful overlapping bureaucracies. This sounds strong and proactive. To John Boozman’s credit he signed the health care bill reform pledge to actually read the bill. This is what Conservative voters want to hear and to see actually happen. No one else in the debate was as definitive. But many question whether Curtis can be trusted to carry through on his word because of compromise in his personal life as minister and husband.
Gilbert Baker and John Boozman in contrast were challenged to defend their support of tax increases. Baker supported a $10 million interchange that would benefit his district, which was intended to accommodate a Hewlett-Packard plant in Conway. “I supported it for three reasons: jobs, jobs, jobs,” Baker said. Boozman defended his vote for TARP, for a drug and prescription bill, and for an increase in the deficit ceiling. But for conservatives, if they want to hear someone defend adding to the tax burden, they would have voted for a liberal. The conservative principle is that jobs, economy, and families are benefited by allowing free market principles play out. At the very least, government officials should be looking for ways to reapportion money rather than to raise taxes. Liberals justify raising taxes and fees. Conservatives justify cutting taxes and fees. Conservative voters have been burned over and over again by representatives who are generally conservative, but continue to advance the liberal agenda morally and fiscally one small bill at a time for ‘good’ cause.
All conservatives and even liberals like Blanche Lincoln can claim that they cut taxes, but most avoid admitting that they raise taxes too. The net result is an increase in taxes and fees. Boozman for the most part has supported cutting or reapportioning taxes, which has earned him a 92 rating with the American Conservative Union (ACU). But the only way to stop this net gain of the liberal agenda is to get someone into office who will say no to all new taxes and to say yes to all cuts in taxes. For this reason, officials who sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge drafted by the Americans for Tax Reform have an edge with conservative voters. Arkansas candidate Kim Hendren refuses to sign this pledge. He says that his constituents should decide whether to raise taxes or not. So, voters who have already decided they do not want new taxes will not vote for Hendren. All the other candidates signed the pledge, even Boozman and Baker, which goes to show voters that they need to look beyond words and pledges. These are important but not enough to ensure that conservatives get what they want.
Conrad Reynolds said he supported cutting corporate taxes for the five years. Now we’re talking conservative. He also wants to cut income taxes by supporting the fair tax and repealing the sixteenth amendment. Now that’s radical. If Reynolds followed through on his statements, conservatives would have a man on their side.
Randy Alexander also says what conservatives like to hear. In the April 17 debate he expressed with conviction that he would limit the budget to the resources on hand and eliminate wasteful spending and departments like education and energy. Education works fine without paying for another layer of government bureaucracy at the federal level. Most importantly, Alexander expressed the mind set that is desperately needed to reverse government trends toward conservative principles describing the need to defeat the Democratic leadership rather compromise with its evil and insidious ways. Though the tact may sound harsh the thinking is right. Liberal democrats demand their agenda and succeed. Conservatives can do no less if they are to succeed. Alexander also distinguished himself from the field of candidates saying that English should be made the national language and legal immigrants only should be welcomed.
Unfortunately for Fred Ramey, questions asked of him at the April 17 debate were freebies like why should someone vote for you and what are your solutions to the problems people are telling you about? He was given a great opportunity to show voters he was different from the rest of the field and his best point was that he is blue collar. Even a liberal can claim to be blue collar.
Jim Holt’s careful and deliberate responses to questions asked of him gave him a lackluster appearance in the April 17 debate. He defended his opposition to giving Sam’s Club a liquor license based on Arkansas law. He also made the very important point that in a one and a half hour debate, each candidate had only about seven minutes to talk, which is not enough for voters to get to know the candidates. Time, record, and experience is on Holt’s side because he has a record of being uncompromisingly committed to conservative values. He is a sure thing for conservative voters. His weak spot is having already lost election attempts against both Lincoln and Halter. His team give good reason why they will win this time, but is it enough to win the support of voters?
Conservatives are looking for a candidate that will separate himself from the pack. Boozman and Baker are disadvantaged because of having been in office. That is, voters can see how they really vote. To Boozman’s credit, ACU gives him a high 98 rating in 2009 as a conservative. It is the liberal 2% that disappoints conservatives. Baker is a party man, and as he said in his debate, disagreements with the party should be discussed privately not publicly. This means a vote for Baker is a vote for the party line not conservative principles regardless of how Baker feels privately. Holt too has a record, but his shows uncompromising commitment to conservative values and a willingness to challenge the party when they do not represent conservative values. Likewise, Hendren has a conservative record of votes during his tenure as an Arkansas legislator but will not pledge to oppose new taxes. Alexander, Reynolds, and Coleman are saying what conservatives want to hear with the disadvantage of not having a record to prove it. Ramey, the blue collar candidate, is not able to distinguish himself from the pack as a leader in word or deed.
As for leadership and gaining confidence to win support from voters, the April 14, 2010 Talk Business Inc. reports on a poll conducted by Zata3 [a Democrat a robo voter-calling communications firm that serves Democrats] of allegedly a sampling of 1,357 statewide Republicans. It depicted Boozman with a commanding lead of 46% over his closest competitor Baker at 14%.1 Everyone else was in the single digits with 17% undecided. [Editoral Note Below*]
By these numbers, Boozman is distinguished as the heavy weight in this race. This suggests that some of the other candidates, truly interested in advancing the conservative agenda, must pull off a miracle or consider serving their supporters by working with Boozman to help him raise his 98% to a 100% rating with the ACU. Boozman would do well to bring these men on board if elected to aid him in making the right choices in the next legislative session.
-----------
Dr. Patrick Briney serves as President of the Arkansas Republican Assembly and is founder of the Leadership Training Institute of America. Views expressed in this article are his own.
-----------
*ARRA News Service Editor's Note: According to an March 30, 2010 independent poll by Rasmussen Reports indicates for all all voters "Congressman John Boozman, State Senate Republican leader Kim Hendren, State Senator Gilbert Baker and former State Senator Jim Holt all earn 51% of the total vote against the present incumbent.
Tags: Patrick Briney, Arkansas Republican Assembly, Arkansas, Republican candidates, US Senate, primary, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment