Arkansas Blog

I want some clarification on this issue: How is the RGA funded? I would naturally assume, that, like the state's membership in the Southern Governor's Association and the National Governor's Association, that the dues are paid by the State of Arkansas (these "dues" can run into the several thousands of dollars). If that is the case, how can funds from the RGA be expended for partisan purposes, ie, campaigns? The only plausible answer to that question is that the RGA is funded by donor gifts. OK, then someone find out who gave how much. Inquiring minds want to know.

The SOB's behind the Arkansas 527 need to all be castrated today!

The Republican Governors' Association is supporting third party groups in Arkansas and other states, huh? Well, I suppose we could deduce that the RGA thinks the third party candidates would make better officeholders than their Republican compatriots. Couldn't we? Well, couldn't we?
Actually I agree wholeheartedly, but I'm not willing to take a chance and dilute the support of the major opponents of the repugnants.

Ok, where is the conrtoversy? A Republican Governors Association gave money to a conservative group . Big Deal.

That still does not suggest that there is direct collaboration going on .

If there were a 527 group attacking Asa I bet you wouldnt be concerned with it.

No big deal. Republicans since 1880 have never had money problems. Historically they have always had more money in their coffers than the Democrats, have always been able to pay their bills while the Democrats go begging and they outspend the Democrats. Decades ago people like William Jennings Bryan fought the uphill battle and it's no different today for Democrats.

Well just ignore other 527s like MoveOn, right?

Surely they're not coordinating with Democrat candidates, are they?

And you call yourself a journalist.

You guys don't seem too bothered by the fact that BOTH MAJOR PARTY candidates and the University of Arkansas system are violating your civil rights by denying the two other candidates for Governor to share in their "debates."

Silly me for thinking that our tax dollars were for all citizens. It's only for the Democrats and Republicans.

Rod , With all due respect, campaigns are run with private money.

Also they(Asa and Mike) belong to a party, Party's also serve as money raisers and campaign helpers.

as an independent you basically said, "I dont want/need a party", thats why you are rerquired to have more signatures to get on the ballot and such.

I agree with you in that the more choices the better , and you are a choice but please don't get all sanctimonious on us because you chose to be a independent.

527 groups don't raise money to attack politically irrelevant politicians.

Citizen Journal,

You miss the point entirely. The point is this:

Arkansas State University, the University of Arkansas Fayetteville and the Clinton School (also funded by UA) have all agreed to "sponsor" the debates between the Democrat and the Republican candidates for Governor.

In so doing, these state funded institutions are complying with rules set forth by the entity established by Beebe and Hutchinson. This is a violation of the civil rights of the other two people on the ballot. It is also a violation to the civil rights of all people who vote in Arkansas.

If there were still justice in this nation, and I hope that there is, the Democrats and Republicans would be denied ballot access by such an outright abuse of our system.

It is unprecedented. It is also a tragically ignorant move by two seasoned attorneys. Perhaps it speaks to the fact that "public service" can erode one's cerebral faculties. This misstep will soon be rectified.

PS
Please don't call me a politician until I'm elected. Also, I'm sure you truly understand my relevance. It's a shame that you paid hacks can't speak what's really on your mind.

The horse is dead, Rod, please stop beating it.

Although, I'm curious, where in the Constitution is the right to be included in a debate if you are a minor candidate in a political race? Or better, where in the constitution is the right to hear such candidates? I guess I must have overlooked that part.

You miss the point too young Robbie,

A good attorney you will not make if you continue to miss the point. You'll learn about it in class next year so I'll save myself the type time.

I can't resist explaining it to you:

My argument lies not in inclusion or exclusion from the "debate."

The argument is PUBLICLY FUNDED SCHOOLS HOSTING DISCRIMINATORY FORUMS.

What part of this do you not get?

If that is truly your case Rod then why did you refuse a handshake from Beebe?

Why insult him if your case isnt inclusion? That didnt appear very professional.

if your problem is with the universities then bring the case to them and stop attacking privately funded political candidates.

Oh and by the way I am not a paid political hack. And I speak exactly whats on my mind.

nice going on insulting citizen journalism though, thats kind of ironic isnt it? Considering that most of your information gets out on less than traditional means.

I refused Beebe because he initiated the process to privatize the debates, which isn't illegal but it is incredibly unethical and cowardly. I won't pretend that it doesn't anger me. The democrats need to learn a bit about indignation. Perhaps if they would stand up for once at an appropriate time, their words wouldn't echo through the valley that once contained a backbone.

If a Democrat in Arkansas does something right soon I'll high five the hell of 'em on live TV.

I have felt for a long time we need to copy the UK when it comes to elections. Restrict the process to a few weeks, give all the viable candidates equal radio and tv time and monitor the elections for fairness and accuracy. This removes the corrupting influence of wealth on campaigning and gives the edge to only those candidates who possess glibness, articulation and image.

You see, Rod, this is why you have been excluded from the debates. You have just succeeded in hijacking this thread away from its original intent and purpose. Are you sure that Drew Pritt is not managing your campaign?

Oh Roddy -

"The argument is PUBLICLY FUNDED SCHOOLS HOSTING DISCRIMINATORY FORUMS."

There are two issues to consider here. The first is that your throw around the term "civil right" for rhetorical purposes without any respect to its meaning. For the purposes of our government, a civil right is anything that appears in the Constitution, in the amendments to the Constitution (particularly the 13th and 14th Amendments), in federal statutes, in state constitutions and statutes and even in the ordinances of counties and cities. I'm pretty sure the Constitution says nothing about ensuring the right of all candidates for office to appear in publicly funded fora ("forums" is not a word, coincidentally).

In addition, you bitch and moan because the "forums" are "discriminatory." Well, I hate to break it to you, but even if you and Jim Lendall participated, they would still be discriminatory. How? They would be discriminating against anyone NOT running for Governor. Not allowing me to participate is discriminatory too. The word "discriminatory" simply means making distinctions based on characteristics - in the case of these debates, the distinction was drawn to include only candidates doing well in the polls (ie, more than 5%). You disagree with where that line was drawn, but there is nothing illegal about it being drawn there.

Robbie,

When you get 10,000 signatures in two months (an important distinction that eluded you?) --you too may become eligible for discrimination from state funded schools in Arkansas.

Polling data has nothing to do with the rules of these fora (thanks for the usage tip). The " rules" were created by Mike Beebe and Asa Hutchinson who are merely CANDIDATES. Therefore, the rules mean absolutley nothing unless an entity adopts them-- and here lies the catch:

By accepting the candidates rules, Arkansas State, UAF, and the Clinton School have become complicit in discrimination of THE OTHER CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT (this doesn't include you right?)

Where did you get this idea about the polls having anything to do with this?

I'd like to get back to the Hitler youth at the Coalition for Arkansas Future...

I find "The Citizen Journal's" or whatever it's called, comments on this issue amusing. More or less, we're supposed to get over it because if the shoe were on the other foot, we dems wouldn't care. To a point, it's correct. However, it's sad that Rovian politics have made its way to Arkansas. This is politics at it's worst and it diminshes us all.

Of note, the CFAF seems to be focused on gay illegal immigrants and their plan to take away our guns by selling meth to our kids. Weird.

On a serious note, it is amusing to see the CFAF really raising hell w/democrats on this scholarships for children of illegal immigrant issue, while not mentioning that the Governor was the champion of the bill. Wonder if they'll run ads against him when he runs for President?

The financial reports for CFAF are online for everyone to see. Here are links:

2nd Quarter 2006 Report:
http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/Print.action?formId=22685&formType=E72

1st Quarter 2006 Report:
http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/generatePDF.action?formId='204361403-8872-0001'&formType=P72

Over half of their reported contributions ($17,500 of $34,025) have come directly from the Republican Party of Arkansas. Another $250 came from Clint Reed, the Executive Director of the RPA. Virtually all of the rest of their money ($15,000) came from a group called "Arkansas Leadership '04 Committee."

What if a little known governor from Arkansas was excluded from televised debates back in 1991?

What if a little known governor from Arkansas was excluded from televised debates back in 1991?

Call me old fashioned, but I like looking up the law when arguing about......um, law. I looked under "right to be included in debates at public institutions," and it said -- see neo-nazi kook - Ralph Forbes. Mr. Forbes also wanted to debate on AETN. The US Supreme Court agreed that he had no right to do so as long as the reason he was being excluded was "content neutral" Meaning, if a candidate had less than a certain percentage of support - he can't debate.

the case, by the way, is here:
http://www.nyls.edu/pdfs/mc_arkansas_educational_television_commission_v_ralph_p_forbes.pdf#search=%22ralph%20forbes%20debate%22

Its all pretty interesting to me, maybe Mr. Bryan has a new spin on the issue that was not considered by the Sup. Ct. in the Forbes case -- I h ope he will share the pleadings on his website.

I am not so upset by the debate debacle, as that was some masterful manuevering by Beebe. I am however rather dismayed by the media's rather lackadaisical reporting on any alternate candidates. The two political parties have become so polarized and inimical to each other that it is impossible for anything to be done in this country. Beebe and Asa are not as much to blame as the media who allowed them to get away with the exclusionary measures. Rather sad state of affairs when the people you have to trust to share information seem determined to do so only if the information suits them.