Halter stays on
The Supreme Court has made quick work of the appeal of a lower court ruling last week on Bill Halter's residency. He stays on the ballot as a Dem. candidate for lt. gov.
To do the learned words injustice, we boil it down to this: residency is a state of mind more than place. The court said Halter had never abandoned his Arkansas domicile. Interesting small point: the court declined to settle the question of whether the seven years of residence required in the Constitution for governors and lt. govs must be the seven years immediately preceding an election. Since, as a matter of law, the court agreed that Halter had continuously been an Arkansas resident, it said it didn't need to determine that point. So Asa Hutchinson's residency remains at least slightly in question, though we'd urge any Democrats to let it slide. A concurring opinion by JusticeRobert Brown questioned the wisdom of accepting such late challenges.
Justice Tom Glaze's decision can be found on the jump.
Opinion Delivered 05-17-06
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY
ARKANSAS NO. CV06-5265,
HON. MARY SPENCER MCGOWAN, CIRCUIT JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
TOM GLAZE, Associate Justice
On Tuesday, March 21, 2006, appellee Bill Halter filed as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor in the Democratic Primary Election scheduled for Tuesday, May 23, 2006. On Friday, May 5, 2006, appellant John Mark Clement petitioned the Pulaski County Circuit Court for a declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus seeking to disqualify Halter as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor. Clement's petition properly named Secretary of State Charlie Daniels and the State Board of Election Commissioners as parties. See Willis v. Circuit Court of Phillips County, 342 Ark. 128, 27 S.W.3d 372 (2000). Clement alleged that Halter failed to meet the seven-year-residency requirement under article 6, § 5 of the Arkansas Constitution, as amended by Amendment 6. Article 6, § 5 provides, "the Lieutenant Governor shall possess the same qualifications of eligibility for the office of Governor. Halter promptly filed his response on May 5, 2006, wherein he stated that he met the constitutional seven-year-residency requirement, and affirmatively asserted that Clement lacked standing to bring this action. In addition, Halter requested an expedited hearing and decision by the trial court.
The trial court granted the parties' requests for an expedited hearing, which was held on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - one day after voters commenced early voting and absentee voting in the Democratic Primary Election. On May 10, 2006, the trial court entered its order denying Clement's petition; from this order, Clement brings his appeal.
First, we address the issue of whether Clement has standing to bring this action. That question is easily decided on the basis of Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243, 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000), in which we addressed this issue of standing. There, Arlanda Jacobs, a candidate for justice of the peace for District Seven in Hot Spring County, challenged the qualifications of her opponent, Doris Tyler. Jacobs alleged that Tyler was not a resident of District Seven, and therefore was ineligible to run for that position. Jacobs contended that once Tyler was removed from the ballot as a candidate, Tyler lost her standing to challenge Jacobs's qualifications. This court disagreed, stating that Arkansas's established law gives a voter the right to challenge the qualifications and eligibility of a candidate, providing remedies to voters, candidates, and other interested parties. See also Tittle v. Woodruff, 322 Ark. 153, 907 S.W.2d 734 (1995). Because Tyler was a voter and citizen of the state and of Phillips County, the Jacobs court held that Tyler had standing to bring suit to challenge Jacobs's qualifications.
The decision in Jacobs is applicable to the case now before us. In short, Clement is a voter and a life-long citizen of the state and of Hot Spring County, which gives him standing to bring this action challenging whether Halter, as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor, possesses the constitutional qualifications to hold that office, if elected.
Next, we point out that Clement initiated this special action, testing whether Halter possesses the qualifications of eligibility for Lieutenant Governor, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207(b). Section 7-5-207(b) provides a means for a voter to raise a pre-election attack on a candidate's eligibility to stand for election and for removal of that ineligible candidate's name from the ballot. Tumey v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 256, ___S.W.3d ___ (2004); State v. Craighead County Board of Election Commissioners, 300 Ark. 405, 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989). Once the election takes place, the issue of a candidate's eligibility under § 7-5-207(b) becomes moot. Id.
Now that we are assured that Clement and Halter are procedurely properly before us, we turn to Clement's points for reversal on the merits. He first argues that the trial court used the wrong standard to determine if Halter meets the constitutional residency requirement for Lieutenant Governor. We hold the trial court was correct.
As previously discussed, "[n]o person shall be eligible for the Office of Governor or Lieutenant Governor except a citizen of the United States who . . . shall have been seven years a resident of Arkansas." In determining the qualifications of voters and public officials, the word "residence" has usually been treated as if it were synonymous with "domicile" and dependent to some extent upon the intent upon the person involved. See Jenkins v. Bogard, 335 Ark. 334, 980 S.W.2d 270 (1998). In other words, the determination of residence is a question of intention, to be ascertained not only by the statements of the person involved, but also from his conduct concerning the matter of residence. Id. (citing Phillips v. Melton, 222 Ark. 162, 164, 257 S.W.2d 931, 932 (1953)). Also important to the instant case is Arkansas's settled rule of law that a person removing from his old home does not acquire a new domicile until he abandons his old one. See Ptak v. Jameson, 215 Ark. 292, 220 S.W.2d 592 (1949). Thus, for the purpose of a voter or a public official, a person does not have two domiciles with a right to choose between them; his domicile is either at one place or the other. Id. This court has held that intention is a question of fact, and in election contests, the findings of the trial judge on factual questions have the force and effect of a jury verdict. Phillips v. Melton, 222 Ark. at 164, 257 S.W.2d at 932.
Finally, in Brick v. Simonetti, 279 Ark. 446, 652 S.W.2d 23 (1983), this court said the following:
Gleaning a state of mind is uncertain work, at best, yet intent, in large measure, determines where one's home is. Here, the trial court pointedly commented on the credence he attached to the assertions of Simonetti that she intended to make her permanent home in the district, and the finding must weigh heavily on review. Where those assertions are supported by manifestations consistent with such an avowed intent, we are not inclined to declare that clear error occurred. See ARCP Rule 52(a).
Brick, 279 Ark. at 449 (emphasis in original).
In the present case, the trial judge was very thorough in listing the evidence that shows Halter had not only established his original (old) domicile in North Little Rock, Arkansas, but also had gone to great lengths to retain his domicile in this state. Those pertinent findings are as follows:
* Bill Halter was born in Arkansas on November 30, 1960;
* after his eighteenth birthday, Halter registered to vote in Arkansas, listing his residence as his parents' house, at 5404 Randolph Road, North Little Rock;
* Halter voted in the 1980 general election and has voted consistently and exclusively in Arkansas from then until the present;
* Halter remained in Arkansas until he matriculated at Stanford University in September 1979;
* Halter attended Stanford University from September 1979 until May 1983;
* Halter performed summer internships while enrolled at Stanford, including working at a Little Rock engineering firm in the summer of 1980 and an internship in the summer of 1983, after graduation from Stanford, for then-Governor Bill Clinton in Little Rock;
* while a student at Stanford, Halter, as a resident of Arkansas, applied for and received the Truman Scholarship;
* while a student at Stanford, Halter, as a resident of Arkansas, applied for and received the Rhodes Scholarship;
* Halter was enrolled in graduate studies at Oxford University from 1983 to 1986;
* in the summer of 1984, Halter served as an intern for then-Governor Bill Clinton in Little Rock;
* after graduating from Oxford in 1986, and until 1991, Halter worked in the private sector and on Capitol Hill for the United States government, and lived in Washington, D.C.;
* Halter lived in Arkansas from October 1991 to January 1993, and worked on the presidential campaign of President Bill Clinton;
* Halter served eight years in the Clinton Administration from 1993 to 2001;
* when President Clinton nominated Halter to be the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, at Halter's choice, his nomination papers reflected that he was a resident of North Little Rock;
* Halter has maintained his Arkansas voter registration up until the present, and he has voted in Arkansas elections throughout his education and career;
* Halter holds an Arkansas driver's license, has continually held an Arkansas driver's license since he was of the legal age to do so, and has never had a driver's license from another state;
* Halter purchased, licensed, assessed, and paid taxes on automobiles in Arkansas and has Arkansas car tags on his vehicle;
* Halter never changed his permanent mailing address from his parents' home in North Little Rock until after he moved back to Arkansas in August of 2005;
* Halter paid income taxes in Arkansas;
* Halter never intended to abandon Arkansas as his permanent residence;
* Halter never intended to permanently become a resident of Washington, D.C.;
* Halter never intended to permanently become a resident of California;
* Halter purchased property in Garland County, Arkansas, in 2004;
* Halter moved back to Arkansas in August 2004 to 5404 Randolph Road, North Little Rock; and
* Halter and his wife now live at 2912 Timber Creek Court in North Little Rock.
Following these factual findings, the trial court determined that Clements had not proven that Halter ever changed residency from Arkansas to another state. The court concluded as follows:
[T]he many actions taken by . . . Halter to retain his connection to Arkansas, including voting in Arkansas, maintaining an Arkansas driver's license, and filing Arkansas income taxes, do not demonstrate an intent to abandon his residency in Arkansas, nor an intent to establish residency in any other state. At various times, . . . Halter was physically removed from Arkansas, but the evidence and testimony reveal that his intent was never to leave Arkansas permanently, nor adopt any other state as his permanent home.
On appeal, Clement does not challenge the trial court's factual findings; rather, he contends that the trial court misinterpreted the law concerning residency and domicile. We cannot agree with Clement's arguments. As discussed above, in election cases, to effect a change of domicile from one locality or state to another, there must be an actual abandonment of the first domicile, coupled with an intention not to return to it, and there must be a new domicile acquired by actual residence in another place or jurisdiction, with the intent of making the last acquired residence a permanent home. Jenkins v. Bogard, 335 Ark. at 341, 980 S.W.2d at 274 (emphasis added). The foregoing evidence clearly reflects that Halter's early domicile was established in North Little Rock, and his continued conduct - such as his voting in Arkansas, maintaining an Arkansas driver's license, and paying Arkansas taxes - evidenced an intent to call Arkansas home and to return to the state. On the basis of this evidence, the trial court correctly determined that Clement failed to prove that Halter abandoned Arkansas as his domicile with the intent never to return to it, and that Halter acquired a new domicile with the intent to make that residence his permanent home.
In reaching this decision, we need not address Clement's additional argument that the trial court erred in concluding that Halter was not required to have an actual place of abode in Arkansas for the seven years "immediately preceding" the election. As we uphold the trial court's finding that Halter never abandoned his domicile in Arkansas, we must necessarily conclude that Halter clearly met the seven-year requirement in Ark. Const. art. 6, § 5, as amended, irrespective of whether those seven years must be spent in Arkansas in the years immediately preceding the election or in any given seven years.
Affirmed. The mandate in this case shall issue immediately.
Hannah, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.
Corbin and Imber, JJ., not participating.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY
ARKANSAS NO. CV06-5265,
HON. MARY SPENCER MCGOWAN, CIRCUIT JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
TOM GLAZE, Associate Justice
On Tuesday, March 21, 2006, appellee Bill Halter filed as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor in the Democratic Primary Election scheduled for Tuesday, May 23, 2006. On Friday, May 5, 2006, appellant John Mark Clement petitioned the Pulaski County Circuit Court for a declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus seeking to disqualify Halter as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor. Clement's petition properly named Secretary of State Charlie Daniels and the State Board of Election Commissioners as parties. See Willis v. Circuit Court of Phillips County, 342 Ark. 128, 27 S.W.3d 372 (2000). Clement alleged that Halter failed to meet the seven-year-residency requirement under article 6, § 5 of the Arkansas Constitution, as amended by Amendment 6. Article 6, § 5 provides, "the Lieutenant Governor shall possess the same qualifications of eligibility for the office of Governor. Halter promptly filed his response on May 5, 2006, wherein he stated that he met the constitutional seven-year-residency requirement, and affirmatively asserted that Clement lacked standing to bring this action. In addition, Halter requested an expedited hearing and decision by the trial court.
The trial court granted the parties' requests for an expedited hearing, which was held on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - one day after voters commenced early voting and absentee voting in the Democratic Primary Election. On May 10, 2006, the trial court entered its order denying Clement's petition; from this order, Clement brings his appeal.
First, we address the issue of whether Clement has standing to bring this action. That question is easily decided on the basis of Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243, 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000), in which we addressed this issue of standing. There, Arlanda Jacobs, a candidate for justice of the peace for District Seven in Hot Spring County, challenged the qualifications of her opponent, Doris Tyler. Jacobs alleged that Tyler was not a resident of District Seven, and therefore was ineligible to run for that position. Jacobs contended that once Tyler was removed from the ballot as a candidate, Tyler lost her standing to challenge Jacobs's qualifications. This court disagreed, stating that Arkansas's established law gives a voter the right to challenge the qualifications and eligibility of a candidate, providing remedies to voters, candidates, and other interested parties. See also Tittle v. Woodruff, 322 Ark. 153, 907 S.W.2d 734 (1995). Because Tyler was a voter and citizen of the state and of Phillips County, the Jacobs court held that Tyler had standing to bring suit to challenge Jacobs's qualifications.
The decision in Jacobs is applicable to the case now before us. In short, Clement is a voter and a life-long citizen of the state and of Hot Spring County, which gives him standing to bring this action challenging whether Halter, as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor, possesses the constitutional qualifications to hold that office, if elected.
Next, we point out that Clement initiated this special action, testing whether Halter possesses the qualifications of eligibility for Lieutenant Governor, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207(b). Section 7-5-207(b) provides a means for a voter to raise a pre-election attack on a candidate's eligibility to stand for election and for removal of that ineligible candidate's name from the ballot. Tumey v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 256, ___S.W.3d ___ (2004); State v. Craighead County Board of Election Commissioners, 300 Ark. 405, 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989). Once the election takes place, the issue of a candidate's eligibility under § 7-5-207(b) becomes moot. Id.
Now that we are assured that Clement and Halter are procedurely properly before us, we turn to Clement's points for reversal on the merits. He first argues that the trial court used the wrong standard to determine if Halter meets the constitutional residency requirement for Lieutenant Governor. We hold the trial court was correct.
As previously discussed, "[n]o person shall be eligible for the Office of Governor or Lieutenant Governor except a citizen of the United States who . . . shall have been seven years a resident of Arkansas." In determining the qualifications of voters and public officials, the word "residence" has usually been treated as if it were synonymous with "domicile" and dependent to some extent upon the intent upon the person involved. See Jenkins v. Bogard, 335 Ark. 334, 980 S.W.2d 270 (1998). In other words, the determination of residence is a question of intention, to be ascertained not only by the statements of the person involved, but also from his conduct concerning the matter of residence. Id. (citing Phillips v. Melton, 222 Ark. 162, 164, 257 S.W.2d 931, 932 (1953)). Also important to the instant case is Arkansas's settled rule of law that a person removing from his old home does not acquire a new domicile until he abandons his old one. See Ptak v. Jameson, 215 Ark. 292, 220 S.W.2d 592 (1949). Thus, for the purpose of a voter or a public official, a person does not have two domiciles with a right to choose between them; his domicile is either at one place or the other. Id. This court has held that intention is a question of fact, and in election contests, the findings of the trial judge on factual questions have the force and effect of a jury verdict. Phillips v. Melton, 222 Ark. at 164, 257 S.W.2d at 932.
Finally, in Brick v. Simonetti, 279 Ark. 446, 652 S.W.2d 23 (1983), this court said the following:
Gleaning a state of mind is uncertain work, at best, yet intent, in large measure, determines where one's home is. Here, the trial court pointedly commented on the credence he attached to the assertions of Simonetti that she intended to make her permanent home in the district, and the finding must weigh heavily on review. Where those assertions are supported by manifestations consistent with such an avowed intent, we are not inclined to declare that clear error occurred. See ARCP Rule 52(a).
Brick, 279 Ark. at 449 (emphasis in original).
In the present case, the trial judge was very thorough in listing the evidence that shows Halter had not only established his original (old) domicile in North Little Rock, Arkansas, but also had gone to great lengths to retain his domicile in this state. Those pertinent findings are as follows:
* Bill Halter was born in Arkansas on November 30, 1960;
* after his eighteenth birthday, Halter registered to vote in Arkansas, listing his residence as his parents' house, at 5404 Randolph Road, North Little Rock;
* Halter voted in the 1980 general election and has voted consistently and exclusively in Arkansas from then until the present;
* Halter remained in Arkansas until he matriculated at Stanford University in September 1979;
* Halter attended Stanford University from September 1979 until May 1983;
* Halter performed summer internships while enrolled at Stanford, including working at a Little Rock engineering firm in the summer of 1980 and an internship in the summer of 1983, after graduation from Stanford, for then-Governor Bill Clinton in Little Rock;
* while a student at Stanford, Halter, as a resident of Arkansas, applied for and received the Truman Scholarship;
* while a student at Stanford, Halter, as a resident of Arkansas, applied for and received the Rhodes Scholarship;
* Halter was enrolled in graduate studies at Oxford University from 1983 to 1986;
* in the summer of 1984, Halter served as an intern for then-Governor Bill Clinton in Little Rock;
* after graduating from Oxford in 1986, and until 1991, Halter worked in the private sector and on Capitol Hill for the United States government, and lived in Washington, D.C.;
* Halter lived in Arkansas from October 1991 to January 1993, and worked on the presidential campaign of President Bill Clinton;
* Halter served eight years in the Clinton Administration from 1993 to 2001;
* when President Clinton nominated Halter to be the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, at Halter's choice, his nomination papers reflected that he was a resident of North Little Rock;
* Halter has maintained his Arkansas voter registration up until the present, and he has voted in Arkansas elections throughout his education and career;
* Halter holds an Arkansas driver's license, has continually held an Arkansas driver's license since he was of the legal age to do so, and has never had a driver's license from another state;
* Halter purchased, licensed, assessed, and paid taxes on automobiles in Arkansas and has Arkansas car tags on his vehicle;
* Halter never changed his permanent mailing address from his parents' home in North Little Rock until after he moved back to Arkansas in August of 2005;
* Halter paid income taxes in Arkansas;
* Halter never intended to abandon Arkansas as his permanent residence;
* Halter never intended to permanently become a resident of Washington, D.C.;
* Halter never intended to permanently become a resident of California;
* Halter purchased property in Garland County, Arkansas, in 2004;
* Halter moved back to Arkansas in August 2004 to 5404 Randolph Road, North Little Rock; and
* Halter and his wife now live at 2912 Timber Creek Court in North Little Rock.
Following these factual findings, the trial court determined that Clements had not proven that Halter ever changed residency from Arkansas to another state. The court concluded as follows:
[T]he many actions taken by . . . Halter to retain his connection to Arkansas, including voting in Arkansas, maintaining an Arkansas driver's license, and filing Arkansas income taxes, do not demonstrate an intent to abandon his residency in Arkansas, nor an intent to establish residency in any other state. At various times, . . . Halter was physically removed from Arkansas, but the evidence and testimony reveal that his intent was never to leave Arkansas permanently, nor adopt any other state as his permanent home.
On appeal, Clement does not challenge the trial court's factual findings; rather, he contends that the trial court misinterpreted the law concerning residency and domicile. We cannot agree with Clement's arguments. As discussed above, in election cases, to effect a change of domicile from one locality or state to another, there must be an actual abandonment of the first domicile, coupled with an intention not to return to it, and there must be a new domicile acquired by actual residence in another place or jurisdiction, with the intent of making the last acquired residence a permanent home. Jenkins v. Bogard, 335 Ark. at 341, 980 S.W.2d at 274 (emphasis added). The foregoing evidence clearly reflects that Halter's early domicile was established in North Little Rock, and his continued conduct - such as his voting in Arkansas, maintaining an Arkansas driver's license, and paying Arkansas taxes - evidenced an intent to call Arkansas home and to return to the state. On the basis of this evidence, the trial court correctly determined that Clement failed to prove that Halter abandoned Arkansas as his domicile with the intent never to return to it, and that Halter acquired a new domicile with the intent to make that residence his permanent home.
In reaching this decision, we need not address Clement's additional argument that the trial court erred in concluding that Halter was not required to have an actual place of abode in Arkansas for the seven years "immediately preceding" the election. As we uphold the trial court's finding that Halter never abandoned his domicile in Arkansas, we must necessarily conclude that Halter clearly met the seven-year requirement in Ark. Const. art. 6, § 5, as amended, irrespective of whether those seven years must be spent in Arkansas in the years immediately preceding the election or in any given seven years.
Affirmed. The mandate in this case shall issue immediately.
Hannah, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.
Corbin and Imber, JJ., not participating.
Comments
Anybody know if there is a law against sign stealing? If so, do local prosecutors handle it?
Posted by: curious | May 17, 2006 05:17 PM
Well, if Halter paid income taxes (not just property), then I'd say he has a right to run.
I can't believe they didn't address the 7 years. I guess now, someone will have to sue another candidate that did abandon his residence to see how the 7 years should be applied. More to come....
Posted by: JimB | May 17, 2006 05:28 PM
"I can't believe they didn't address the 7 years. I guess now, someone will have to sue another candidate that did abandon his residence to see how the 7 years should be applied. More to come...."
Which candidate? Asa or Campbell or both?
Posted by: anony | May 17, 2006 05:31 PM
Sign stealing is against the law. Tell your local law enforcement officer. However, make sure your signs were stolen. The Highway Department ends up with a lot of signs. If you put a sign in a right of way or where it obstructs a driver's view, then they took the sign. In most places you can go to the local highway department and you can pick up signs they have collected. Depending on the area and who is in charge, depends on how they treat signs. I have seen them mow them down one year, and the next year they mowed around them.
Also, remember that a lot of towns have sign ordinaces that say you have to take down your signs after the primary and put them back up 60 days before the general election.
Posted by: Reply to curios | May 17, 2006 05:34 PM
"However, make sure your signs were stolen. The Highway Department ends up with a lot of signs."
No these signs were stolen. One person saw it happening and said it was an actual candidate. All the ones missing were in places that many other signs are still located. This isn't a matter of them being in a place without permission or agianst the law.
Posted by: reply | May 17, 2006 05:42 PM
"One person saw it happening and said it was an actual candidate."
And it was a STATEWIDE MALE candidate.
Posted by: reply2 | May 17, 2006 05:44 PM
"Also, remember that a lot of towns have sign ordinaces that say you have to take down your signs after the primary and put them back up 60 days before the general election."
Reply to curious, you sure do seem to be making a lot of excuses. The last statement obviously doesn't apply. When I sign is taken down where the owner gave permission and other signs remain, it was stolen. Who you trying to make excuses for anyway?
Posted by: bs | May 17, 2006 05:49 PM
When signs for the only female candidate disappear as a young male candiate goes through each town to put up his, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who is taking them down.
Somebody needs to give that boy an ass kickin to teach him how to act here in Arkansas.
Posted by: obvious | May 17, 2006 05:52 PM
If the signs stolen exceed $500 then it is a felony, if less it is a misdemeanor. Since you mentioned it was a statewide male candidate, you narrowed down to all but one of the statewide candidates. Also, without calling the police while it is happening or catching the person with the signs it is hard to prove, unless taped. Many a candidate has been caught on tape stealing signs and other stupid things.
Posted by: Further Reply to curious | May 17, 2006 05:57 PM
Where did all this sign crap come from? Who cares?
Posted by: huh | May 17, 2006 06:03 PM
First the trial court. Then the poll. Now the Supreme Court. If it was't for bad luck, Hathorn would have no luck at all.
Posted by: Rick Kashay | May 17, 2006 06:05 PM
Who cares? Any decent person should care. While it's not as bad as stealing votes, it is along the same lines. Anyone that doesn't care must do it themselves.
Posted by: icare | May 17, 2006 06:07 PM
Did anyone read Brown's concurring opinion? He stopped just short of calling it a political farce. Bad news for Hathorn and the Flintstone Law Firm.
Posted by: TJefferson | May 17, 2006 06:07 PM
icare, that is the lamest reasoning I have ever heard. Comparing signs to votes. What an idiot.
Posted by: icarenot | May 17, 2006 06:09 PM
Let me guess...Hathorn, Foster and Pritt are thinking of filing charges against Halter for stealing yard signs~!
Give it up guys, YOU LOSE! Voters are tired of your negative lies and dirty tricks!
Posted by: gimmeabreak | May 17, 2006 06:10 PM
Hathorn has been a real sissy about this and came off like a whiny bitch. He took a chance, lost and now I'm voting for Halter. I was truly undecided until his campaign pursued this way beyond its merits.
Posted by: Jim Kata | May 17, 2006 06:16 PM
Saw a mid-20s/30s female putting Hathorn signs out at churches last night on the way to a meeting. Today I see them at PVCofC, Fellowship Bible and the two churchs on Mississippi (one is Christian, one ???). I thought it was strange to see her put them at churches but since I don't care which of these yahoos win this race, didn't say anything.
Posted by: Strange sign location | May 17, 2006 06:23 PM
"Let me guess...Hathorn, Foster and Pritt are thinking of filing charges against Halter for stealing yard signs~!"
If any of those four are stealing signs it wouldn't be Halter.
Posted by: nada | May 17, 2006 06:24 PM
Did you hear how Pritt almost kicked Mac Campbell's ass when Campbell mistakenly accused Pritt of stealing his signs. Pritt had picked up one of Mac's signs and had it in the back of his pickup to drop off at the party headquarters. Mac saw him and went ape shit. As one who was there I never thought I would see Pritt kick somebody's ass but Mac almost got his due. He better be careful who he acts all queenie towards in the future.
Posted by: its2funny | May 17, 2006 06:26 PM
I guess he incorrectly thinks his sign was stolen so he went on a sign stealin' rampage then?
Posted by: LLM | May 17, 2006 06:28 PM
Mac can apparently blow up to the point that even the most non-violent people want to woop his ass. I know of a friend that is ready to kick his ass. I've never known him to want to fight at all either. I have many mutal friends with Mac and they all say he's got a terrible temper. Unlike John McCain he has no good excuse though.
Posted by: interesting | May 17, 2006 06:31 PM
It's not your friends that get you elected. It's your enemies that get you defeated. Your dirty actions are gaining you one hell of an enemy.
Posted by: To MAC | May 17, 2006 06:36 PM
From the Ark. Times' "It was a Good Week For" section:
BILL HALTER. The candidate for lieutenant governor must be making headway with his huge commercial buy. Otherwise why would opponent Mike Hathorn be trying so desperately to tar Halter with bogus complaints about Halter's residency and hysterical complaints about his campaign financing?
Posted by: Even the Times saw through it | May 17, 2006 06:43 PM
I'd rather a candidate pay for thier own campaign than whore themselves out to the Waltons and others.
Posted by: liberaldem | May 17, 2006 07:10 PM
Gosh our Supreme Court sucks.
The easy way to dispose of the case is to rule that it doesn't say seven years in a row or seven years prior to the election (which a prior constitution DID say) instead they do this stupid residency is where you intend to live even if you don't live there.
I hereby intend to live in Texas and subject myself to their income tax (ain't none) even though I shall remain physically in Arkansas.
Posted by: Well | May 17, 2006 07:16 PM
Pritt couldn't kick anyone's ass. I assume you meant "lick."
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2006 07:18 PM
Pritt couldn't kick anyone's ass. I assume you meant "lick."
-----
From what I hear from his friends, Mac would probably enjoy that.
Posted by: eww | May 17, 2006 07:33 PM
From what I know of Pritt, Mac is too much of a queen to be Pritt's type.
I'll say this much for Pritt, at least he is brave enough to admit being a faggot, instead of Mac who uses coded phrases and insinuations. I suppose Mac will tell the older women he's a confirmed bachelor next!
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2006 07:39 PM
I certainly don't support Mac but calling him that is over the line. Calling anyone that is over the line. If he is gay it doesn't matter to me. Though his lying about it is a bit shady.
Posted by: geez | May 17, 2006 07:49 PM
Listen, folks, I like Bill Halter very much, but I can't support him because of the sort of campaign he has run.
One candidate can lie about another candidate all he wants. Smear. Distort. Slander. Libel. Stab-in-the-back. It's disgusting and disheartening but it is, unfortunately, politics.
But when a man lies to supporters, telling them that he is running for one office when he every intention to run for another, he's pulling a fast one not on Joe Q. Politician but on the pocketbooks of little old ladies.
(To argue that this Rhodes scholar, being advised by none less than Ron Oliver, Bud Jackson, and Bill Romjue ever thought he could beat Mike Beebe in the race for Governor is silly, silly, silly. We pull the wool over our own eyes if we believe it.)
You may come in last, but isn't it worth it to run an honest race? If you win the marathon by taking a shortcut--even when nobody seems to notice--is it an accomplishment to celebrate?
I have a list of other complaints about Mr. Halter, including a litany of incredibly insidious things his out-of-state hired guns have perpetrated at the expense of well-meaning but naive "true believers". I've never seen anything like the contempt the campaign has for the Democrats' organized core constituencies. (I suppose the base vote doesn't matter when one can buy TV commercials with money that wouldn't be there had one announced from the beginning to run for the office he intended to occupy.)
I can't stand the tactics of his campaign--tactics brought-in by outsiders that may fundamentally change Arkansas politics permanently for the worse. I can't stand the fact that this sort of thing is being accepted.
The tactics of other campaigns--say, the lawsuit brought by supporters of Mike Hathorn (a stupid move but not a sinister one) may not always be angelic, but they are actions employed by one candidate against another, not by a candidate against the people he has the potential to represent. That I can't sit by and stay quiet about.
I've voted for the Democratic candidate in every statewide primary since I was eighteen. If Bill Halter is on the ballot in November, I will abstain.
I hope I don't have to break my record.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2006 09:12 PM
I don't always agree with you Max, but we certainly agree on this
"For state treasurer, I'll vote for Martha Shoffner, a former legislator. We need more women in public life. We also need fewer politicians, like her opponent Mac Campbell, intent on serving billionaires first. If Campbell so ardently supports giving the 18 richest families in America repeal of the estate tax, how else will he serve them to the detriment of everyone else?"
Could not have said it better.
Posted by: oldmanjones | May 17, 2006 09:29 PM
Dear Hathorn campaign staffer (AKA Anonymous)
It's too late to try this ploy. Every campaign tactic from your camp has been outted and beaten. It looks like Halter has a lot of the rand-and-file voters of the party behind him.
It would have been wiser to start as a lt. gov. candidate in the first place only if it was his intent to seek that office. I believe he was sincerely seeking the governor's office but saw an unlikely chance at winning after he announced. For the campaign he ran and his political savvy, I WiLL vote for him.
Posted by: Vote as I see it | May 17, 2006 09:29 PM
I'll vote for Halter if he's our nominee. Won't vote for Campbell though. Don't vote for Republicans.
Posted by: miss yella dawg | May 17, 2006 09:39 PM
Wow, no Drew posts?!!! Could he be (gasp!) speechless??
Posted by: Flabbergasted | May 17, 2006 10:19 PM
Take a look at what all of Halter's signs and ads said back when he was running for Gov. Now contrast it to the Gov. Lite race.
Same dang message. That was the point at which the whole switch was a ploy. That was also the point when I decided to vote against him. I'm glad someone took aim. Mike's got mine, and I'm not a staffer. Probably would be if he had an office around Mississippi County.
Posted by: NEA dem | May 17, 2006 10:21 PM
So did he ever vote in another state? Hmmm.
Posted by: votes | May 17, 2006 10:54 PM
Pritt, your anon post above doesn't fool anyone...the truth is you can not vote for Halter because he stands for everything you make a mockery of...
Halter said he would not run for Gov because he felt that in order to win he would have to resort to Negative campaign tactics. In spite of his opponent"s(and a certain non-candidate named Drew Pritt's) disgusting dirty tricks, Halter has taken the high road, discussing his plan to move Arkansas into the future. That is why he has a 21 point lead over his closest competitor with 5 days left to go.
Max said it better than I, "Bill Halter will get my vote for lieutenant governor on account of sheer intellect, solid TV ads and the demerits of at least two of his opponents"
Congrats to that "Rhodes scholar, being advised by none less than Ron Oliver, Bud Jackson, and Bill Romjue," on a carefully thought out, well run race.
Posted by: gotmyvote | May 17, 2006 11:20 PM
Outsider to Arkansas, I have no need of anonymous posts, because what I say is out on public record for everyone to see, read, and discuss. You are right when you say I cannot support Bill Halter because he represents values I do not believe in.
* I do not believe public office is to be treated like a Bangkok Hooker sold to the highest bidder for the moment.
* I do not believe in raising all my money outside of the state in which I seek to represent.
* I do not believe in corporate money being so closely tied in with an elected official.
* I do not believe in claiming the support of someone then mocking him when he repudiates that support.
* I do not believe Bill Halter is qualified or prepared to be an effective nominee with Mike Beebe in the fall election.
Attack me if you want - but I am the one with the guts and the character to post under my name. Finally, this race ain't over - so remember he who lasts laugh - laughs best.
Posted by: Drew Pritt | May 17, 2006 11:39 PM
If that last post wasn't from Bud Jackson, then I am a baby seal.
Posted by: Bud Jackson. | May 17, 2006 11:39 PM
http://parkedplaces.com/karn/audio-downloads/2006/05-12-06-jay-martin.mp3
Posted by: just listen | May 18, 2006 12:10 AM
http://parkedplaces.com/karn/audio-downloads/2006/05-10-06-tim-wooldrige.mp3
Posted by: just listen | May 18, 2006 12:12 AM
Drew, you're such a pompous ass.
Bill Halter ran a program that was in charge of 25 percent of the federal budget.
He not only GRADUATED from Standford University, but also qualified for a Rhodes scholarship.
As a 10-year college student who is now just a sophomore, I'm sure you can appreciate that achievement.
The guy's super-bright, though a bit arrogant, which is the same complaint made by fellow generals about Wesley Clark.
Stick to tomato stands, Drew. Hand out your pearls of political wisdom along with your sacks of tomatoes. Only I hope your tomatoes are of better quality than your political insights, lest that venture lower your credit rating even more.
Political envy is much sadder than penis envy. One of those you have control over, the other you don't.
Posted by: enough already | May 18, 2006 01:45 AM
"Take a look at what all of Halter's signs and ads said back when he was running for Gov. Now contrast it to the Gov. Lite race.
Same dang message."
Funny how that works, dumbass.
Doesn't matter which office you're running for: the same issues are important for arkansas, like education and our economy.
how dumb can you be?
Posted by: um... | May 18, 2006 02:10 AM
It's less than a week until the primary. Do all of you Halter staffers really have this much free time?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 18, 2006 02:13 AM
Sneaky Hathorn
Robert McCord
Updated: 5/18/2006
For many years I have been watching and writing about political elections in Arkansas, but I don't think I ever saw any strategy quite as sneaky as something that Mike Hathorn tried to use last week.
Hathorn, a 32-year-old lawyer who was a former state legislator from Huntsville (home of the late six-term governor Orval Faubus), is trying to be elected lieutenant governor this year. First, Hathorn must defeat three others to win the Democrat primary next Tuesday.
Some of Hathorn's friends (two who each gave him $1,000 to campaign) had lawyers go to court
to argue that the Arkansas Constitution says that a candidate for governor or lieutenant governor had to live in Arkansas for at least seven years. Therefore, Bill Halter, Hathorn's major opponent, wasn't eligible because Halter had lived in Washington, D.C., and other places for several years until he moved back to Arkansas in 2005 when he decided to run for office.
Arkansas's 132-year-old Constitution says: "No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor except a citizen of the United States who shall have attained the age of thirty years, and shall have been seven years a resident of this state... The lieutenant governor shall possess the same qualifications of eligibility for the office of the governor."
Hathorn's lawyers argued that the writers of the constitution meant that candidates had to live seven years in the state before running for office. Circuit Judge Mary McGowan quickly ruled that Halter was qualified to run for office because he had never abandoned Arkansas as his home. She said: "If the framers of the 1874 Arkansas Constitution had wanted to require seven years immediately before the election as a qualification, they could have done so, and they did not." One of Hathorn's lawyer friends said he would appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
All of this seems silly. Arkansas's Constitution is one of the oldest in the United States. When written, the state's five largest cities were just over 1,000 people, and the United States had only 27 towns over that size. One historian, the late Diane Blair, wrote that Arkansas's Constitution "restricts more than it enables." Five attempts have been made to rewrite the Constitution, the last being 1995, but most citizens always vote no because they are scared by the opposing advertising of wealthy people and big businesses that are getting rich from the state and don't want any changes.
Is it really important how many years a candidate lives in the state? Only 17 of Arkansas's 45 governors were born in Arkansas. The other 28 came from other states, mostly Tennessee. Some of those from other states were the best governors we have ever had - Win Rockefeller of New York, Charles Brough of Mississippi, George Donaghey of Louisiana, Carl Bailey of Missouri, etc.
Now this man Halter who Hathorn was trying to dump was born in Arkansas. So was his father, now 71 years old and still here. Halter, age 44, was graduated in 1979 from Catholic High School where he had played football and basketball. He worked summers at Kroger, got a scholarship from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, made straight A's at school and for that got a National Merit Scholarship and went to Stanford University in California to study economics.
In his junior year at Stanford, he got a Rhodes Scholarship and spent three years at Oxford in England. He managed to travel to Egypt, Israel, Poland, Germany and the Soviet Union. Back in the United States, he got a job in a management-consulting firm and three years later he was hired by the United States Senate Committee on Finance as its chief economist. Later he moved to Congress' Joint Economy Committee.
In 1992 he came back to Little Rock to write an economic policy for Bill Clinton's campaign. After Clinton became president, Halter went back to Washington to work for the Office of Management and Budget in the White House for six and one-half years. Then he went to work at Social Security and became its first confirmed deputy commissioner.
Today Halter is involved in many things. He's been a trustee at Stanford University, a member of the board of Friends for Youth, serves on the board of Akarmai Technologies and is a consultant for several other companies. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, a Marshall Scholar and a Harry Truman Scholar. He believes and says that better education is what will push Arkansas forward.
In 2002 in Washington, I met Halter and wrote a column about him because he was smart and was thinking about running for governor of Arkansas. I really thought he was serious when I noticed that he had an Arkansas license on his car. I think this man's interest is to come back home and improve it. With his intelligence and experience, I think he could do it even though he hasn't lived all his life in Arkansas.
Posted by: Mike Hathorn's End of Days | May 18, 2006 02:22 AM
I saw a preliminary draft of Halter's acceptance speech for Tuesday night. So far it goes like this:
"Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
The Democratic voters of Arkansas have spoken and found me worthy to represent them in the general election against my Republican opponent.
Tim, Mike and Jay, you ran good campaigns and I ask for your support in the months to come.
Bud and the rest of my campaign staff helped me get my message out to the people of this great state.
However, the person who I am confident gave me my victory, without fear of a bruising runoff, is Drew Pritt.
Drew, without your steadfast, maniacal opposition I think Tim could have given me a problem in a runoff two weeks from now. Every commonsense voter who heard about your insane hatred for me voted for me. For that, you get my warmest thanks."
Posted by: better the second time around | May 18, 2006 02:26 AM
Someone should tell Halter's speechwriter that runoff's in Arkansas are 3 weeks after the primary...not two.
Must be confused with Maryland. You can see where that would be easy.
Posted by: New Speechwriter | May 18, 2006 04:44 AM
The Supreme Court opinion opens the door for a challenge to Asa's residency. Changing your voter's registration just might be evidence of intent not to return to Arkansas.
The only questions are which fine, unknown citizen is gonna be recruited to challenge and when. They had better heed the advice of Justice Brown and not wait too long. Don't want to appear to be playing dirty politics.
Posted by: Odell Goodrum | May 18, 2006 08:01 AM
"New Speechwriter" AKA Drew Pritt, Halter doesn't have to worry about a run-off because he will win outright. Go buzz off Drew, noone cares what you think.
Posted by: No Worries | May 18, 2006 08:25 AM
Pritt says: "You are right when you say I cannot support Bill Halter because he represents values I do not believe in."
Pritt Means: " I am stupid-cant get past my sophomore yr ,I have no integrity -I have done time for hot checks and still won't pay my campaign debts. I am lazy, never held a real job! "
Pritt says: "I do not believe public office is to be treated like a Bangkok Hooker sold to the highest bidder for the moment."
Pritt Means: " I have attempted to run for office in 3 differentr states and cant get on the ballot-wish I had the money Halter does!"
Pritt Says "I do not believe in raising all my money outside of the state in which I seek to represent."
Pritt Means "The only money I could raise was from my Momma and a handful of Homosexuals"
Pritt says: " I do not believe in corporate money being so closely tied in with an elected official."
Pritt means: "All elected officials should listen to me cause I am a bi-ness man what owns a mater stand"
Pritt says: "I do not believe in claiming the support of someone then mocking him when he repudiates that support."
Pritt means: "Nobody likes me, everbody hates me, I'm the most mocked man in Arkansas history!"
Pritt Says: "I do not believe Bill Halter is qualified or prepared to be an effective nominee with Mike Beebe in the fall election.
Pritt means: "I spent more time sucking up to Beebe than anyone, wish he could just appoint me Lt Gov."
Pritt says: "Attack me if you want - but I am the one with the guts and the character to post under my name. Finally, this race ain't over - so remember he who lasts laugh - laughs best."
Pritt means: "Everybody attacks me because I am an idiot, who thinks I know it all and I post under my name so that everybody knows it. When this race is over and Halter wins, everyone will be laughing at me...Hell, they already are!"
Posted by: Reality | May 18, 2006 08:35 AM
Here's yet more fodder for why the present state Supreme Court incumbents should be replaced and as soon as possible. If there is a wrong-headed way to rule they'll find it and often do it unanimously. Incredible! Vote the dogs out!
Posted by: Catmando | May 18, 2006 09:32 AM
Dear Reality, if I am such a nobody....if I am an idiot....then stop posting an attacking me. You prove my point everytime.
Keep posting also that Halter is so far ahead. Believe the pols. Stupid campaigns since Tom E. Dewey's have believed polls as well and in the end, when they come up short, the public perception of their candidate is worse. Keep believing the lie.
This is a ground game. A ground game is won on turnout. Bring it on and lets see which camp knows how to turn out votes.
Posted by: Drew Pritt | May 18, 2006 10:18 AM
Drew, you need to shut your mouth and give Adcraft a check that will clear the bank. Once a crook, always a crook. Bet McDaniel and Wooldridge wish you would endorse someone else.
Posted by: TJefferson | May 18, 2006 10:32 AM
I think it is funny that Campbell is pulling so far ahead that Pritt and Shoffner are trying to "Swift Boat Captain" him. Did anyone see Shoffner's quotes in the paper today? Is there any question why Drew Pritt is the only person who is supporting her?
Posted by: these people are nuts. mean nuts. | May 18, 2006 10:38 AM
If Pritt owned a home his buddy Hathorn would be foreclosing on it as we speak!
Drew, You are still an idiot, a nobody and a deadbeat. Nothing you do or say will ever change that!
Posted by: Reality | May 18, 2006 10:38 AM
Stop trying to attack candidates because a certain person may or may not be supporting them. Candidates can't help who is supporting them. Somebody's getting despesrate.
Posted by: CK | May 18, 2006 11:07 AM
Laughing because some poor fool is saddled with the endorsement of deadbeat Drew is a long way from being desperate.
Posted by: hahaha | May 18, 2006 11:14 AM
campbell is not pulling ahead. He is going down in flames. He is being attacked because he is a big phony.
Posted by: right | May 18, 2006 11:15 AM
I've been told that Drew Pritt is working for Campbell and Hathorn under cover (no pun intended).
Posted by: word on the street | May 18, 2006 11:19 AM
I agree with you "CK"...Campbell and Wooldridge can't help it that a moron like Pritt would endorse their campaign, But they still gotta be wishing Drew would go away!
Posted by: go away Drew | May 18, 2006 11:21 AM
Ironic that Wooldridge who opposed the hate crimes bill because it would have included sexual orientation would be endorsed by someone who made a big deal out of being the first openly gay candidate for statewide office. Shows the mindless goofiness of Pritt and the hypocrisy of Wooldridge.
Posted by: saywhat | May 18, 2006 11:26 AM
Mac Campbell bio
Age - 32. Born - Feb. 5, 1974. Birthplace - Harrison. Current residence - Harrison.
Current occupation - Attorney.
-----
Where does Mac Campbell live in Harrison? I've heard he's registered to vote at his parents address. Anyone else think it weird that a 32 year old "attorney" would be living with his parents? And he doesn't actually work so how is his occupation an "attorney?"
Posted by: curious | May 18, 2006 11:29 AM
He lives in LR and runs his campaign out of his house. He does not live in Harrison. He does not work other than campaigning.
Posted by: reply to curious | May 18, 2006 11:34 AM
"My momma always said, Stupid is as Stupid does"
-Forrest Gump
We gotta face the facts...Drew Pritt is STUPID!
Posted by: bestaluck | May 18, 2006 11:37 AM
Campbell is a good guy! He does not try and shoplift the pooty from single mom's , hathorn he does.....he's gross
Posted by: Anonymous | May 18, 2006 11:43 AM
I'm still waiting to hear a single "new idea" of Campbell's. I'm all for new ideas but don't say it if you dont have them.
Posted by: PC Law | May 18, 2006 11:59 AM
Campbell says "The concept that the treasurer just listens to the staff and does what the staff tells them is mismanagement. Sure, you could have somebody who's just a knot on a log."
So Jimmie Lou Fisher and Gus Wingfield were just knots on a log? I don't recall them trying to make policy. They just did their job.
Posted by: who's the knot? | May 18, 2006 12:10 PM
To Drew Pritt:
Since you seem to have little or no knowledge about modern political campaigns (probably because you can't afford to run a modern campaign and even if you could, noone would take your check) I will provide you a little lesson in public opinion polling.
1) In regards to the famous Dewey polls - polls have come a long way. Modern methodology is far better than is was then.
2) Trends - there is always the possiblity of a "bad sample" this is why trends are so important. If a candidate is consistantly gaining, then you can bet his numbers are really going up.
3) Weighting - polls can be weighted to account for demographics, gender, race, party affiliation and socio-economic status.
4) Grasping - when a candidate or his supporters are consistently poll low, they attack the polls and desperately grasp on to anything they think could help them. (Drew, you fall in this category)
Posted by: School | May 18, 2006 12:22 PM
Drew Pritt = Idiot
I can't believe he's trying to compare recent polls to a poll conducted in 1948. Do you think the people of Arkansas are stupid Drew?
Posted by: Idiot | May 18, 2006 12:37 PM
School,
Keep teaching Drew. Then in about 10 years he'll be a sophomore at your institution. Good luck.
Posted by: School's out for summer | May 18, 2006 12:39 PM
From the Morning News . . . Real Analysis
State Treasurer
There are instances when a seemingly easy decision invites paralysis through analysis. Trying to avoid that pitfall in making a choice for State Treasurer, we're supporting the candidate in the Democratic primary whose education and work experience clearly make him the best choice -- Mac Campbell.
Campbell is our choice over Don House and Martha Shoffner. Both House and Shoffner have experience in state government, having served in the state House of Representatives. Both also have experience in business, House as owner and operator of a funeral home and Shoffner as a Realtor.
But Campbell brings an expertise to the position that we think Arkansas should take advantage of. Campbell has earned degrees in agricultural economics, a law degree from the University of Arkansas and a Master of Laws in taxation from Georgetown University with an emphasis on employee benefits and financial products. He served on Sen. Blanche Lincoln's staff in Washington, D.C., as a legislative assistance and tax counsel. During his time in Washington he worked on tax bills, banking and securities legislation, pension bills and insurance and bankruptcy bills.
That's the sort of resume that generally is associated with candidates for ambitions for higher profile offices. But Campbell insists his interest is genuinely in serving the people of Arkansas in an office where his talents and interests can be of use. We think voters should give him the chance to do just that.
Posted by: UH OH | May 18, 2006 12:41 PM
In the famous words of Gubernatorial candidate Joe Holmes. All Jimmie Lou Fisher is is a glorified bookkeeper. That pretty much describes the Treasurer,s office. Jimmie Lou was the Secretary of Whatever's Free and Gus Secretary of Nepotism.
Posted by: Socrates | May 18, 2006 01:22 PM
All three candidates could do the job. Jimmie Lou did a great job without a bunch of degrees. I think this quote from Max sums the race up best.
"For state treasurer, I?ll vote for Martha Shoffner, a former legislator. We need more women in public life. We also need fewer politicians, like her opponent Mac Campbell, intent on serving billionaires first. If Campbell so ardently supports giving the 18 richest families in America repeal of the estate tax, how else will he serve them to the detriment of everyone else?
I'd follow his endorsement over some Republican rag any day. Also didn't the owner of the rag give money to Campbell? yep
Posted by: prefer max to warren stephens | May 18, 2006 02:17 PM
These attacks have no basis and have no bearing. I dare any of you wannabes to step up and place your true name to your posts. I dare you to meet me face to face and state this bullshit, like a man.
Until then - get over yourselves.
Posted by: Drew Pritt | May 18, 2006 08:38 PM
Drew, nobody considers you worthy of pissing on. You are an irrelevant hot check artist.
Posted by: ha | May 18, 2006 08:51 PM
I renew my offer to meet Drew face to face. This is my fourth public offer to Drew, all out in the open on this board. Drew has yet to have the guts to name a time and location. I have, in the past offered the steps of the Capital as an option.
Drew - why are you writing checks you can't cash? Accept the challenge or stop asking people to meet you face to face.
Posted by: Face to Face | May 18, 2006 09:31 PM