PearlMississippiCPA

1976 Redux

2008-05-31T17:38:00.002-05:00

It feels like 1976 all over again. I remember that year as if it was yesterday. That was the year of the gigantic battle of Ronald Reagan versus President Gerald Ford for the Republican Presidential nomination. And in November, that was the year Jimmy Carter was elected President.

Fast forward to 2008 and there are sharp similarities between the two years. Obviously, they are not exactly alike. For example, the GOP Presidential nomination was decided in February when Sen. John McCain came out on top in the primaries.

But the similarities are eerie. First, the incumbent Republican President was very unpopular. Ford was unpopular because of the deep recession and pardoning ex-President Richard Nixon. President Bush is unpopular because of the economy and the war in Iraq.

Second, the United States faced implacable foreign foes. In 1976, the U.S. faced Communism as its foe. In 2008, it is Islamic terrorism.

Third, the U.S. economy is in poor shape. In 1976, the U.S. was coming out of a deep recession and high unemployment. In 2008, the U.S. is going through a mortgage crisis, high gas prices and a sharp increase in food prices.

Fourth, movement conservative ennui. After Reagan lost in 1976, movement conservatives sat on their hands and refused to help Ford. Many of us just took a political vacation. I voted in the general election, but that was it. There were only fourteen of us working in the Reagan Presidential campaign in the Alachua County (Gainesville), Florida Reagan headquarters. The fourteen of us made over 40000 telephone calls in six weeks and heavily canvassed the area. Reagan took a surprisingly high 41% of the vote in the guts of liberal territory. But the primary was very bitter. Young Republican meetings turned into brawls. Indeed, the police had to watch over our meetings because of the bitter fighting. Friendships were destroyed. I know of one Reaganite who broke off his engagement because his girlfriend was actively working for Ford. Many of us felt Carter would be a failure and then in 1980 Reagan would be elected. So we decided to sit out the race and let the Democrats win.

Republican establishment critters like the glory and glitz of politics, but they do not like the nitty gritty of campaigning. Doing the "boiler room" work is not fun. You make calls (I wonder how that works with the proliferation of cell phones in today's society.), stuff envelopes, drive workers to the polls, canvass door-to-door, put literature on cars in shopping parking lots, etc. You won't see establishment types do that. But movement conservatives have done all that and then some (I personally made thousands of calls for Reagan in that very bitter Florida primary.).
John McCain inspires no movement conservatives. Our attitude is let him lose and wait until 2012.

Fifth, the GOP is very unpopular. In 1976, only 25% of the voters identified with the GOP. In 2008, it's not as low. But it has declined since 2004. Just like the Republicans were dejected in 1976 (You could smell defeat in the air after Reagan lost to Ford.), so are they in 2008. I have met very few Republicans who are enthusiastic this year. The church I attend is very conservative and Republican. I have yet to find one person who is enthusiastic about McCain. Most of them will give them a very reluctant vote. But unlike 2004, some will sit out the election or vote third-party.

Sixth, conservatism is at a hiatus. After Reagan was defeated in 1976, the conservative movement was in limbo for a few years. Ford was a moderate squish who had no political philosophy at all. In 1980, conservatives came up with a winning platform. In 2008, conservatism has no message. The message, "we can do better than the Democrats", does not resonate with the average voter. If the GOP is going to be Democrat-lite, then why not vote for the real thing? If the Democrats win the White House, conservatives will have to come up with a coherent strategy to meet economic and foreign policy challenges.

Seventh, an outsider was elected. Nobody ever heard of Jimmy Carter when he began running except for Georgians (the state, not the country) and political junkies. But he ran on a platform of bringing back trust to the White House. He was inexperienced, serving four years as a state senator and four years as governor. Barack Obama will probably be elected. His experience is serving eight years as a state senator and four years as U.S. Senator. Like Carter, he has very little experience.

Eighth, the Democrats won the Presidency by a very narrow margin. Carter was elected with just over 50% of the vote. Obama will probably win by a narrow margin. Carter started with a huge 34-point lead over Ford and was poised to win all fifty states when the campaign began. As it turned out, he won the Electoral College 297-241. Obama will probably start with a big lead against McCain, but will probably win by a narrow margin.

Politics is strange and history often repeats itself. 2008 seems like 1976 redux.

The Teenage Itch

2008-05-26T16:55:00.002-05:00

Every sixteen years (hence, the "teenage" term) since 1944 the American electorate has gone through the mantra of "change." The strong desire for change came in the 1960, 1976, and the 1992 elections. And the desire for change is very strong in 2008. There are similarities in all
these four elections and I will point them out in a very long post. Here goes.

1. All those elected in 1960, 1976 and 1992 were Democrats. I don't think 2008 will be any different. John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were elected.

2. All those elected set a precedent. John Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic to be elected President. Jimmy Carter was the first Deep Southerner to be elected and Bill Clinton was the first out-of-the-Deep-South Southerner to be elected. And it looks like Barack Obama will be the first black elected President.

3. All of them were elected in a time of economic malaise. The 1960 recession helped elect John Kennedy by a very narrow margin. The 1973-1975 recession was quite deep and helped elect Jimmy Carter. The 1990-1991 recession helped elect Bill Clinton. In 2008, there is a lot of economic uncertainty because of high gas prices and rising inflation on food items.

4. The Republican nominees alienated the conservative base and many conservatives did little or sat out the election. When Vice-President Richard Nixon made the agreement with Gov. Nelson Rockefeller on the 1960 Republican Party platform, many conservatives accused Nixon of "selling out" to the liberal Rockefeller. Conservatives called it "The Betrayal of Fifth Avenue." Many conservatives felt betrayed and sat on their hands in the general election.

In 1976, there was a very bitter GOP nomination battle between President Ford and Ronald Reagan (I was there. I can tell you thirty-two years later the bitterness is STILL there. It was the nastiest campaign I've ever been in. I put in mounds of hours for Reagan. Indeed, I kept a diary of that campaign.). Ford won, but conservatives refused to help him.

In 1992, conservatives were fed up with President George H.W. Bush. When he betrayed his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge in 1990, conservatives abandoned Bush. Commentator Pat Buchanan ran against him and hurt Bush in the primaries. In the general election, many of us conservatives sat out the race or voted for Perot.

Fast forward to 2008. Sen. John McCain is an embarrassment to all conservatives. For twenty years he has spat in our faces and rubbed the spittle on our cheeks. He wants open borders, tight environmental controls, tax increases and moderate judges. Many of us voted for Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul. When they all faltered, many conservatives switched to Mitt Romney. McCain's "divide and conquer" strategy to split the conservative support and votes worked like a charm. I'll vote for Bob Barr or Charles Baldwin before I vote for McCain.

5. The Democratic victories were narrow victories. John Kennedy won the popular vote by 112803 votes out of 68.8 million. Jimmy Carter won with 50.9% of the vote. Bill Clinton won with 43% of the vote. Obama will win, but it will be with 51% to 52% of the vote.

6. The Democrats made major gains in the prior off-year elections. In 1958, the Democrats gained 13 Senate seats and 48 House seats. In 1974, the Democrats gained five Senate seats and 47 House seats. In 1990, the GOP was expected to pick up some Senate seats. Instead, they lost a Senate seat and nine House seats. But they got creamed in the governors' races. In 2006, the Democrats gained six Senate seats and 35 House seats.

7. The cry for change was overwhelming. In 1960, the mantra was "Time for a Change." John Kennedy campaigned against the GOP's three recessions in eight years (with the 1957-1958 being a crushing recession). In 1976, the cry was for honesty in government because of Watergate. Jimmy Carter preened he would never lie to the American people and would have a government as "good as the American people." He would be an outsider that would change Washington, D.C. In 1992, Clinton railed against "the worst economy in sixty years." He would change that by giving a big middle-class tax cut (instead, he raised taxes). In 2008, Obama's mantra is "Change we can believe in."

8. The Republicans had governed for at least eight years. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower was President from 1953 to 1961, Republicans Nixon and Ford were Presidents from 1969 to 1977 and Republicans Ronald W. Reagan and Bush 41 were Presidents from 1981 to 1993. President Bush has been President from 2001 and it'll be eight years when he leaves next year.

9. Voter approval of the GOP hit bottoms. In 1960, people were disgusted with the GOP because of the recession and Russian gains in foreign policy. While Eisenhower was personally popular, his party had low approval ratings. In 1976, Ford had low approval ratings because of his wanting to raise taxes in 1974 to fight a recession (Remember, the WIN buttons the White House put out in 1974?) and pardoning Nixon. In 1992, Bush had low approval ratings because of his indifference towards the economy during the recession (He had never seen a checkout scanner before.). In 2008, Bush's approval ratings are in the low 30s or upper 20s. People have soured on the War in Iraq and the high gas prices.

History is a very stern teacher. It looks like the GOP will learn its lesson for abandoning conservative principles and acting like Democrats-lite. Mark my words: The Democrats will win the White House in 2008 by a narrow margin.

Do NOT Vote for John McCain

2008-05-17T16:41:00.002-05:00

I get tired of the old cliche' that you must vote "for the lesser of two evils." If you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. I've been told many a time if you vote for a third-party candidate, you are throwing away your vote. Maybe so, but at least it's a vote based on principle and not on expediency.

Senator John McCain would be the biggest disaster to befall the Republican Party and the conservative movement should he be elected President. If you think the 2008 election is going to be a nightmare for the GOP, the 2010 off-year elections would be a total disaster. The conservative movement would be in exile for at least twenty years if he is President.

McCain would be a disaster as President. Let's look on how liberal he is on the issues even though he preens himself as a conservative.

1. Taxes. He voted AGAINST both of President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. He has never been a supporter of tax cuts. Indeed, look for him to "reach across the aisle" and find ways to increase taxes.

2. Iraq. He's gung-ho for the stupid, idiotic war which has cost this nation 4077 lives and 30004 wounded. We'll be there for at least four more years and more dead and wounded. He has no plans of getting us out of that ridiculous war.

3. The Environment. His speech in Portland, Oregon was something out of the liberal Sierra Club playbook. He's bought into the global warming nuttiness and is all set to lower our standard of living to appease the environmental wackos. In fact, there has been a global COOLING in the last ten years. And wasn't it just thirty years ago we were talking about a global ice age?

4. Abortion. John McCain has no use for the pro-life movement and would sell the movement out in a heartbeat. In private, he has complained about the prolifers and has no use for them. He will not be a prolife President and would betray the prolife cause.

5. Judicial Appointments. Do you think he's going to appoint conservative judges? Not a snowball's chance. He said Judge Alito is "too conservative" for him. He said that Roe v. Wade should remain law. And do you think he'd appoint judges who would overturn the McCain-Feingold Campaign Law, a stupid law which limits free speech and caused the proliferation of 527 organizations?

6. The North American Union. He has said some very positive things about a North American Union, which would put Canada, the US and Mexico as one entity. This would undermine American sovereignty and reduce the rights of all American citizens.

7. Iran. He sang a ditty to the tune of "Barbara Ann" as "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." That's just what we need: Another war with a Middle East nation. He strikes me as a hothead who would not be afraid to go to war at the slightest incident.

8. Immigration. He would be gung-ho for giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. He has no plan to stop illegal immigration and will continue the heavy influx of illegal immigrants coming to this country. I have nothing against legal immigrants. Let them come. But why should those who break the law be rewarded with amnesty?

9. The Economy. He will have a lot more government intervention in the economy. Whenever the government gets involved, the economy suffers. His "economic reforms" may put this country in a deep recession.

10. The Patriot Act. Look for him to add more provisions to the Patriot Act which would diminish our civil liberties.

I'd rather have Obama than McCain. At least I KNOW Obama is a liberal. His voting record and his pronouncements show that. Well, I don't like it but at least I know he's forthright about it. We conservatives will have to hunker down for two years and come up with an alternative program. McCain says he's a conservative but he's lying through his teeth. The problem is the voters will believe him and punish the conservative movement when his administration fails (which it will).

Let Obama win. Let the American people have a real solid dose of unadulterated liberalism. Let the GOP go in the political wilderness for two to four years. It would serve them right. The GOP does not have any conservative principles. In fact, the GOP doesn't know what it stands for. Let them get a whipping this year. Let the voters kick them solidly in the teeth. One of the GOP Party leaders said the GOP must "accessorize." What does THAT mean? Dress up in drag? Men carrying a purse? The GOP is a gutless party that stands for nothing. The GOP is crying about losing that Congressional seat in north Mississippi. Tough toenails. This is a gutless, cowardly, scum-sucking, yellow-bellied party that doesn't stand for anything. Maybe a shellacking will give them some backbone and the guts to come up with ideas to reduce government. Maybe they'll stand for something.

As for Obama, he is Jimmy Carter redux. His administration will be one of the most disastrous administrations since Jimmah's. You can count on a deep recession and stagflation. You think Bill Clinton was liberal on social issues? Clinton will look like Lou Sheldon compared to Obama. On foreign policy, he will be a weakling. The Russians (Yes, Putin is becoming a lot more aggressive in foreign policy.) and Muslims will take advantage of his weak policies. And if you think gas is expensive now, it'll be worse under Obama.

As for me, I'm debating voting for Libertarian Bob Barr (although he hasn't received the nomination, he is the favorite) or Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. I know I'm wasting my vote. But Barr and Baldwin have principles and have the courage to stand up for them. They are conservatives and will not back down on their principles. And if the GOP loses because these two candidates drain enough votes to give Obama the victory, then that's just tough.

Screw McCain and the Republican Party.

Why Charlie Ross Lost His Race for Congress

2008-05-10T17:40:00.003-05:00

It has been over a month since Charlie Ross lost his race for Congress. I was so busy with tax season that I had no chance to write as to the reasons for his loss. After tax season, I did some extensive work in asking people why they didn't vote for Ross. After putting all the data together, here are the reasons he lost:

1. His cold, aloof personality. It was bitterly ironic, but the more people got to know Charlie Ross, the more likely they were to vote for Gregg Harper. Those who never met the candidate voted for him without any question. They liked his service in the Legislature. But those who did know him could not stand him. Some people got downright nasty with me when I told them I was voting for Ross. The ones who knew him described him as "aloof, a snob, know-it-all, cold, imperious, insensitive" and other terms not worthy of mention.

2. The David Landrum voters. Landrum's voters were bitter against Ross for the hit campaign on Landrum's not voting in prior primaries and elections. Actually, it was John Rounsaville who brought that out. But many Landrum supporters think Ross was behind it all. They broke heavily for Harper after the first primary.

3. The Religious Right. They were thirsting for their own and they got it in the person of Gregg Harper. He played the religious card for all he could milk it. Much to Ross' credit, he refused to play the church game to get votes. He said he was not going to use church to further his political campaign. You could see Harper schmoozing to those pastors so he could get Religious Right votes. I was nauseated by Harper's bringing up what a wonderful Christian he was and how he would have a "servant attitude" if he were in Congress. But this district is rife with the Religious Right and they swallowed Harper's religiosity hook, line and sinker.

4. Phil Bryant. Now Charlie Ross may claim Phil Bryant is his friend (With friends like that, who needs enemies?), but that is wishful thinking. I found out Bryant was going all-out to defeat Ross. Bryant is a lowlife who holds grudges until the end of time. I was told Bryant was very bitter against Ross for Ross' "mudslinging" (i.e., that's a Bryant code term for telling the truth) during the raucous GOP primary for Lt. Governor last year. He vowed revenge. His financial backer, Billy Powell, was working hard and raising money for Harper. (Politics makes very strange bedfellows. Billy Powell worked hard to defeat a pro-life plank in the Rankin County GOP platform back in 1990, but that didn't stop him from backing a very strong pro-lifer such as Harper.) Phil Bryant made it known he was after Ross and encouraged his supporters to vote for Harper. If Satan had been in the runoff against Ross, Bryant would be holding Satanic ceremonies. That's how bitter Bryant was against Ross. (And believe me, Bryant can be a very vindictive scumbag.)

5. Ross fatigue. When Ross decided to run for Congress, I had a lot of my friends tell me, "You mean to tell me he's running again? He just lost his race for Lt. Governor." They got tired of his puss on the tube again. They wanted a fresh face. If Landrum hadn't blown that voting controversy, he would have made it to the runoff and defeated Ross. Instead, they voted for the vacuous Harper.

I had a friend call me up on Election Day inviting me to the victory party. I asked him how the race looked since he was hot and heavy working for Ross. Much to my shock, he told me it didn't look good and Ross was going to lose. He was right, with Ross getting an anemic 41% of the vote. He should have easily been elected. He was clearly the most qualified person to run for Congress in the district since Sonny Montgomery.

Ross may try another run for political office in 2011 or even later. But don't count on his winning. With Phil Bryant and his toadies bitterly fighting him every inch of the way, Ross will have an uphill climb. It's a shame, because Ross was perhaps one of the smartest and most productive members in the State Senate.

The Thrill Is Gone

2008-04-26T17:35:00.002-05:00

Today in Rankin County and throughout the rest of the state the Republican Party caucuses were held. At 10AM, you'd meet at your precincts to elect delegates to the county convention. The county convention, which would meet at 3PM, would elect delegates and alternates to the state convention plus elect members to the party executive committee.

I showed up at my precinct at 9:55AM. I waited twenty minutes and nobody else showed up. I elected myself as a delegate to the county convention. I later met a friend and he was the only one to show up at his precinct. He also elected himself as a delegate. But neither one of us decided to go to the county convention.

I just didn't have the ambition to go to the convention. The reason? I no longer care. The thrill is gone. I don't even plan to help the Republican Party one iota this year. So why should I show up for the convention? Why should I work my tush off for John McCain when he has betrayed every conservative belief known to the conservative movement? Why should I even VOTE for him when there is not much difference between him and the two Democrats running?

The GOP used to stand for something. During Reagan, it stood for rock-solid conservatism and it had no problems on taking on liberalism. Now, you'd be hard-pressed to tell me the difference between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration when it comes to fiscal and tax policy. Sure, there were differences on the social issues, but that was it. My friends at www.cottonmouth.blogspot.com think Bush is some wild-eyed conservative. Bush is perhaps one of the most liberal Presidents when it comes to spending and foreign adventures. His idiotic war in Iraq is counter to the Old Right Conservative philosophy of foreign entanglements.

My friends at www.cottonmouth.blogspot.com probably think the GOP and conservatism are one and the same. NOT TRUE!!! I was a Republican because I felt the GOP was the only vehicle for conservatism. But after eight years of Bush and six years of a Republican Congress, I found out how untrue that was. It was under Bush and a GOP Congress that we got another drug entitlement. And pork spending reached unprecedented levels.

I get sick and tired of the GOP telling me, "If you don't vote for McCain, you'll have a liberal Democrat in there for four years with a Democratic Congress to run havoc over the nation." Well, so be it. In fact, I'd rather have Obama in the White House than McCain. At least Obama is a flaming liberal and the US will find out what unvarnished liberalism is all about. If they want flaming liberalism, let's give it to the American people. Like Jimmy Carter, there will be such a backlash conservatives will make gains in the off-year elections and the 2012 elections. McCain would be a disaster, but the American people will identify conservatism with the GOP. It would set the conservative movement back a generation if McCain was President.

I have talked to scores of my conservative friends and not one of them is going to lift a finger to help McCain. And most of them will NOT vote for him. So let me tell the GOP this and they better get it through their very thick hides: You may not win with us movement conservatives. 1964 showed that. BUT YOU CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US. 1976, 1992, and 1996 showed that. Indeed, the GOP lost Congress in 2006 because conservatives switched to the Democrats or stayed home. You can count on us not to do a thing for McCain.

Do you think we are bluffing? We are not in politics for profit or to get patronage. We are in politics because of our political ideals. In 1976, GOP poobahs thought we'd get over Reagan's losing the GOP nomination to Gerald Ford and we'd all work our tushes off for Ford just like we did for Reagan. Well, we told them what to do with themselves and we didn't give a rat's Pattie if Ford lost to the peanut warehouser. We just sat back and did other things. The GOP was very hard pressed to get volunteers to man phone banks and walk the precincts. Ford lost because we conservatives didn't lift a finger for him. Expect a repeat in 2008.

Republican Party hacks and party poobahs who are in it for power and political gain, get this through your very thick skulls on how we movement conservatives feel: The GOP stands for nothing, believes in nothing, honors nothing, justifies nothing, exhorts nothing, cherishes nothing, and essentially does nothing.

Exactly what you will get from us movement conservatives.

A Party Switcher

2008-01-31T17:41:00.000-06:00

Yesterday State Senator Nolan Mettetal switched parties from the Democratic to the Republican Party. He stated he was a conservative and the Democratic Party no longer welcomed conservatives. He said, "I'm the same person with the same values that I've always had, but I've found a new home."

Okay, fine. Since I'm nominally a Republican (Actually, I'm an Old Right conservative.), I like to see people switch from the Democratic to the GOP. Notice how he switched less than a month into the Legislative session and just three months after the election. How convenient. He used the Democratic Party to win the primary and to be elected as a Democrat. He was first elected as a Democrat back in 1995. He aligned himself with the Democrats in the State Senate, always identifying with that party. Now he's a Republican.

Here's my question: Why didn't he run as a Republican last year? That way, he could have stated how the Democratic Party betrayed conservatism and he was now running as a Republican. The voters could evaluate his decision to switch. Two State Senators last year did switch parties (from Democratic to Republican) and were thrown out by the voters.

Chances are very good Mettetal would have been thrown out by a strong Democrat. The area he represents is strong Democratic territory. But now he has four years to repair his political fences and get reelected (should he decide to run for reelection). The Democratic Party activists who worked for him feel betrayed. Can you blame them?

I like what Phil Gramm, the former U.S. Senator from Texas, did. He was reelected as a Democrat as a Congressman from Texas in 1982. He became disgusted with the Democratic Party and resigned his seat, saying he would swith parties and run as a Republican in a special election. He easily won and later ran for--and was elected--to the U.S. Senate.

However, Mississippi has no party affiliation in special elections. This is why I'm in favor of party registration. There should also be a provision in the party registration bill if an officeholder switches parties, his seat automatically becomes vacant and he must run in a special election for that seat under his new party label.

What Senator Mettatal should do is resign his seat and run in a special election under his new party label (even though it wouldn't be on the ballot). Let the voters decide if they agree on his party switch.

The Great Polarizer

2008-01-28T17:40:00.000-06:00

There is no person who can polarize the country running for President as Hillary Clinton. Even though I'm a fire-breathing conservative who thinks President Bush is a liberal weenie, I could stomach Barak Obama. At least I'd give him a chance. And even though I would more than likely disagree with his policies if he were elected, I wouldn't dislike him. When Bill Clinton was President, I didn't like his policies. But I liked him as a person. In fact, he'd probably make a good fishing or hunting buddy.

Not Hillary Clinton. I do not dislike Hillary Clinton. I UTTERLY DESPISE HER. I don't call her "Hitlery" because I dislike her. I call her that because she is--and has in the past--determined to destroy those who disagree with her. We talked about the Presidential race in our Sunday School class yesterday. None of the Democrats or Republicans elicited much emotion. But all you had to do was mention Hillary and people started going ballistic. You have no idea how deeply hated she is.

If she is elected, she will have 40% of the people hating her guts (I'll be one of them.) the second she takes the oath of office as President. If she makes mistakes--which she will--that could easily rise to 60% or more. She is hated not because she is a woman. She could be my twin sister and I would passionately hate her. She is extremely ruthless who will have no limits in destroying her political opponents. She will come up with despicable lies to discredit her opponents. This is a person who has no iota of decency or honor. She is a crook and a pathological liar. I honestly believe she would steal milk from a dying baby if it would score her some political points.

She may very well be elected. But count on a polarized, deeply split country for four years if she is elected. If you think this country was polarized during Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's administrations, you haven't seen polarization until she is elected.

The GOP Malaise

2008-01-26T18:00:00.001-06:00

I have heard a lot from my friends on how they feel about the candidates running for the Republican Presidential nomination. I have never heard such a dislike for the field. In all my years of politics I have never seen such a lack of enthusiasm for the GOP candidates (the exception is the Ron Paul supporters) as I have seen this year. The biggest complaint I've heard is "none of them are like Reagan."

Reagan never got elected to office and then developed a political philosophy. I followed Reagan's political career from his famous speech "A Time for Choosing (delivered October 27, 1964)" until he retired from politics in 1994. If you look over his political career before he was elected to office as governor of California in 1966, he already had a well-developed political philosophy. He was not a cipher when it came to political philosophy. He actually read philosophers who developed the conservative philosophy he believed in--Locke, Hayek, von Mises, Kirk, etc. This is not just sheer talk. Reporters who visited him looked in his library. He actually had those books by those philosophers and underlined key passages. Believe it or not, Reagan was a conservative intellectual. When he decided to run for office, his political philosophy was already developed and backed by an intellectual knowledge of reading.

This is in very strong contrast to the candidates running for the GOP nomination. With the exception of Rep. Ron Paul, none of them have any defined conservative philosophy. If you were to ask them why they were conservatives, they could not give you an intelligent answer. (Paul could. Indeed, he is very well-read on conservative philosophy. His political philosophy was already developed when he was first elected to Congress in a special election back in 1976. Alas, he stands no chance of getting the nomination.). Of all the major candidates, Fred Thompson came the closest. But he has dropped out.

I have read the transcripts of the GOP debates and I can tell you the four major candidates--Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee--know nothing about conservatism and its intellectual underpinnings. They just flow with the times. They just differentiate themselves a little from the Democrats. Their big arguments are they are not Hitlery or Obama. Now that's a sure-fire political philosophy.

When all four of those candidates initially ran for office, none of them had a defined political philosophy. Giuliani was a GEORGE MCGOVERN supporter in 1972. Mitt Romney ran to the LEFT against Ted Kennedy(!) in his race for the U.S. Senate in 1994! Huckabee was a big taxer as governor of Arkansas. And McCain is certainly no conservative. Just look at that McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.

Now all these four claim to be conservative. They are no more conservative than my cat Bueller is a space alien. I just may vote third party this year. If this is the best the GOP can do, they richly deserve to lose. In all my years of being involved in the GOP Presidential primaries, I have never been so disenchanted as I have this year.

Let Hitlery govern for four years and mess up this county beyond recognition. The GOP will regain control of Congress and maybe the GOP will put up a REAL conservative in 2012.

Billy McCoy versus the GOP

2008-01-26T17:37:00.000-06:00

State Rep. Billy McCoy was reelected House Speaker by the narrowest of margins, 62-60. In doing so, he did not get ONE Republican to vote for him. All 47 Republicans voted for Rep. Jeff Smith for Speaker. Smith also picked up thirteen Democratic State Representatives, two of them coming from the Legislative Black Caucus. The Democrats voted 62-13 for McCoy and the GOP voted 47-0 for Smith.

In retaliation, McCoy appointed all Democrats to House committee chairmanships. The only GOPers who got anything were freshmen appointed to vice chairmanships. But what did the GOP expect? They can scream and holler all they want, but they got what they deserved. Billy McCoy doesn't have to give them squat. To the victors belong the spoils. And you get your just desserts for raw partisanship.

Don't get me wrong. I'm FOR brass knuckles, blood gushing, groin kicking raw partisanship. I want both sides to present their arguments and to fight vigorously for them. I want screaming and nastiness on the legislative floors. Let the legislators passionately fight for their beliefs and ideals. I utterly despise State Rep. Steve Holland (D-Plantersville). He's a total jerk and other raw adjectives which I will not print. I think he barely passes for human. But I admire his raw partisanship. I admire his willingness to fight for what he believes in.

The GOP should learn a lesson here. Winning statewide races is great. But that means little if you can't win the legislative races. In a supposed Republican year, the GOP did not gain one seat in the House (It remained the same.) and lost three in the State Senate. If the GOP had used its resources for the legislative races they may have turned around a few seats in the House. But they were obsessed with winning those state races.

The GOP is going to learn the hard way that it's the small races that matter. The GOP should have a "Republican Legislature Victory Fund" or something like that. I would concentrate on winning more seats after redistricting in the 2011 elections. I would pour in tens of thousands of dollars in winning the marginal districts. Indeed, I would start recruiting candidates after the 2008 general election.

The GOP deserves no sympathy from anybody. They played raw partisanship in the House and lost. Live with it. And do something to win more legislative seats in 2011.

Utilities, Light Bulbs and Ron Paul

2008-01-17T17:22:00.000-06:00

You are probably looking at the title and wondering, "Huh?" But they are all interconnected and explains the reason why I am gung-ho for Ron Paul to become the Republican nominee for President.

In California (where else?) the utility companies are coming up with a method to remotely control YOUR thermostat in a time of emergency. This will be done to new homes that are being built or are being remodeled. You will have NO control over your thermostat. There is no clear-cut definition as to what an "emergency" is. This could be the start of "Big Brother" as far as utility companies go. Talk about big government.

On a prior post, I wrote about the switch from incandescent to CFL (compact fluorescent) bulbs. By 2012, all 100-watt bulbs must be CFL bulbs. But here is the problem: The CFL bulbs have six times the mercury that is considered unsafe. In Maine, a CFL bulb broke in a residence. The homeowner called the Maine EPA and asked what was to be done, since it was considered a hazardous material. The Maine EPA said they could clean up the broken bulb---FOR $2000. Can you believe it? How are you dispose of the bulb when it burns out? When you get the answer, you can rest assured it will be more government hassles rammed down your throat.

So what does this have to do with Ron Paul? Government is becoming so intrusive and expansive that it is raiding our very private lives. What business is it of the government if we use incandescent light bulbs rather than CFLs? What gives a utility company the right to control my thermostat because of government fiat? Ron Paul thinks such stuff is an outrage. And where are the other Republican candidates to comment on these questions? I hear crickets chirping.

I have never seen such stupidity as this. We have the government telling us how many gallons a toilet must flush in our homes. We have the government telling us what temperature to set our thermostats. We have the government telling us what light bulbs to use. When will this nuttiness end?

This is why I am for Ron Paul. He is in favor of limiting government as to what the U.S. Constitution says it should do. Less government, more responsibility---and with God's help---a better nation.

Charlie Ross for Congress

2008-01-14T17:18:00.000-06:00

In my opinion, there are four main candidates for the GOP nomination (and hence, election) for the Third Congressional District: They are John Rounsaville, David Landrum, Gregg Harper and Charlie Ross.

Let's look over those four candidates and their qualifications.

John Rounsaville worked for the USDA, so he's very knowledgeable about agricultural issues. That means a lot in this state. Also, he knows his way around the Third District. But other than that, he has no outstanding qualifications for Congress.

Gregg Harper has no political experience other than being the chairman of the Rankin County GOP. Now Rankin County is one of the most Republican counties in the state. He has raised a lot of money for the county and the state GOP. But other than that, what qualifies him to be a Congressman? I think he's running so he can get his name out to the public so he'll have a lot of name recognition when he runs for Dean Kirby's State Senate seat when he decides to retire.

David Landrum is a nice guy and a shrewd businessman. He's also spending the big bucks on TV advertising (If you haven't seen any of his TV commercials, you've been in hibernation.). But what qualifications does he bring to the race? He can make big bucks. Wow. Do you want a Congressman who bought the race?

Charlie Ross was once a State Representative and a State Senator. He accomplished a lot when he was a State Senator. He helped push through tort reform and the Castle Doctrine. He had a perfect pro-life record in the State Legislature. He had the HIGHEST pro-business BIPEC rating in the State Senate. He is exceptionally intelligent and a very hard worker. He's not a show horse but a workhorse.

Charlie Ross also knows his way through the Third District. He ran for Lt. Governor last year and received 43% of the vote. He was considered one of the most conservative candidates to run for office. The other candidates talk about how conservative they are. Well, all that is great. But Ross has the record to show for it.

On March 11th, please vote for Charlie Ross for Congress. We don't need any pretty boys or show horses. We need a workhorse like Charlie Ross.

Ron Paul Is Not An Antiwar Leftist

2008-01-07T17:35:00.000-06:00

Many conservatives think Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul is an antiwar activist who is no different from Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who are both running for the Presidency. In fact, conservative organizations such as the American Conservative Union give Paul a low conservative rating because of his antiwar stance.

There is a vast difference between Ron Paul and the antiwar left. Ron Paul is for a very strong national defense and was in favor of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Indeed, Paul was a very strong Cold Warrior when the Soviet Union was trolling over Eastern Europe. The antiwar left is for cutting defensive weapons defending the US and blames American first for everything. If there was an attack on the US, I believe Ron Paul would go all-out militarily to defeat the aggressor. The antiwar left would blame American and "want to negotiate."

Where Ron Paul differs from neoconservatism (which is considered "mainstream conservatism" in politics today) is Paul is against using force in every nation of the world that is not a threat to national security. He is not one for trying to change a foreign nation's political system like we are doing in Iraq. Since when is it our business to tell another nation what political system to use? If a nation is a dictatorship and it does not affect our national security, that is that nation's business. Woodrow Wilson entered World War I to make the world "safe for democracy." Yeah, that worked real well. He planted the seeds for the rise of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. We fought a bloody World War II and a long Cold War because Wilson wanted to ram America's political system down the throats of Europe.

Bush reminds me of Wilson. But suppose Wilson had never got the US in World War I. There eventually would have been a negotiated settlement with Germany grabbing some of western France. But that would have been it. So let's say we would have been stuck with the Kaiser of Germany and the Emperor of Austria-Hungary with no free elections. Would that have been so bad compared to what really did happen--planting the seeds for the rise of Nazi Germany and Communism? And now Bush wants democracy in the Middle East. If there were free elections in Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia Muslim extremists would win. Is that what we want--more Islamic extremism?

Ron Paul is correct when he says Bush's crusade for democracy offends the targeted nations. How would you like it if you were a citizen of, say, Bulgaria, and an American President says you must have a democratic government? What if the US said it would invade your nation if you didn't change your government? Would you like being dictated by a foreign power as to what kind of government you should have? Bulgarians are a proud people don't like being pushed around. They are proud of their history. (For the record, Bulgaria is a free republic. I'm just using that nation as an example.) How do you think the citizens in Muslim countries feel?

Ron Paul's foreign policy is very simple: Unless that nation is a direct threat to our national security, the United States has NO BUSINESS getting involved in the domestic and foreign policy affairs of that nation. If that nation is such a threat, then the United States should do all it can to repel that threat, even if it means military action.

Ron Paul is in favor of withdrawing from Iraq because it was never a direct threat to our national security. Let's say Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He would have used them on Iran, a nation he fought an eight-year (1980-1988) war against, or Israel (who probably would have smoked him). He certainly wouldn't have used them against the US. With 3910 American dead and 28822 wounded, has the war really been worth it? Has the $610 billion been worth it as far as our national security is concerned?

Ron Paul's foreign policy was considered mainstream Republican thinking until 1947. Today he is considered a pariah in his own party.

Ron Paul is not antiwar because he hates America. He's antiwar because he loves American and wants to return her to the ideals she once knew.

Ron Paul Is the True Conservative

2008-01-05T17:37:00.000-06:00

Many conservatives consider Texas Congressman to be a crank, fascist, antiwar fanatic, neoNazi, a kook, crazy, and other opprobrious adjectives. But if this were the 1920s, Ron Paul would be the prototype conservative. So what has happened?

For years the Old Right Conservatives ruled the GOP. Indeed, from 1919 to 1947 they controlled the GOP and ran the government from 1919 to 1931. So what do the Old Right Conservatives believe in?

First of all, we (since I consider myself to be in the ORC camp) believe in the rule of natural law. That means all people are equal and have equality of opportunity. We believe in the sanctity of life and being governed by the Judeo-Christian principles as outlined in the Bible.

Secondly, we believe the role of the Federal government is to adjudicate disputes between states and provide for the national defense. That's it.

Thirdly, we believe the states should be the preeminent ruling polity in the United States. The states should rule and set their own rules for welfare, taxation and social issues without the interference of the Federal government.

Fourth, we believe the United States should not get involved in ANY foreign disputes or send troops on foreign soil unless it affects the national security and safety of the United States. We are opposed to all foreign aid. We believe the US should have the strongest national defense in the world. We are not anti-military and support the military. We are just against getting involved in foreign disputes if it does not affect our national security.

Fifth, we believe in the nationhood of the United States. We are opposed to all illegal immigration. We welcome all legal immigrants and hope they become citizens. We believe our language should be only the English language for political and business transactions.

Sixth, the United States Constitution should rule in all matters. If it is not specified in the Constitution, then no political entity or elected official has the right to create new powers in the Constitution.

We are NOT libertarians. Libertarians believe in open borders and unlimited immigration. They also believe in abortion on demand and the national legalization of all drugs.

We ORCs believe the states should rule. For example, if Vermont wants to legalize homosexual marriage and legalize all drugs, that is Vermont's business. If that state wishes to create a socialist economy and have state control, that is their right. On the other hand, if Mississippi wishes to ban ALL abortions and make it a crime punishable by death for performing an abortion, Mississippi should be allowed to do that. If Mississippi wishes to make homosexuality a crime punishable by a jail sentence and drug usage punishable by imprisonment, it should have that right. And if Mississippi wishes to have a capitalist, free-market economy, it should have that right to do so.

From the founding of our Republic until 1931, state government spending was TWICE the amount of Federal government spending (except for war). The Feds were rarely involved in controlling the economy and sending troops overseas. Until 1917, all of our wars were fought on the North American continent. And with the exception of the War of Northern Aggression ("Civil War" to you Yanks.), there was no military draft. Indeed, Old Right Conservatism was the ruling belief. It is hard to believe that until 1901 all drugs were legal and until 1934 marijuana was legal (I'm not advocating drug legalization. I'm opposed to the use of drugs and never tried drugs--or tobacco or hard liquor.).

That changed with the Federal income tax in 1913, the Federal Reserve banking system and America's entry into a stupid war in Europe in 1917. But the main invasion of Federal power came during the Great Depression and World War II. Today the Federal government wants to reign supreme in our lives. In fact, they are now telling us what light bulbs to buy (honest!).

The ORCs faded away with the Cold War. But they made a comeback after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. For 150 days, there were no enemies to the US. Then came the first Bush's foolish invasion of Iraq. And thirteen years later his son decided to invade Iraq again. The neoconservatives took over in the first Bush's administration and run the GOP.

The neoconservatives believe in big government conservatism and the foolish notion of spreading democracy to lands that are under a different government structure. They are in favor of big government--just not as big as the liberals would have. They have taken a page out of liberal President Woodrow Wilson's foolish playbook and are trying to make the world "safe for democracy." We are now involved in the tar pits of the Middle East with no exit strategy in sight.

Read the Republican Party platform of 1964 and compare it to the one in 2004. You would not recognize that it is the same party. The GOP has morphed into a liberal party but just not as liberal as the Democrats. The Old Right was prevalent in the 1964 platform as far as domestic policy was concerned. The neoconservatives wrote the GOP 2004 platform.

Ron Paul is an Old Right Conservative. He is campaigning as such. If you read Joseph Scotchey's book Revolt in the Heartland, you would know exactly where Ron Paul stands (It is an excellent book with great sources.). He is a radical only because he wants to go back to the roots of limited government in the domestic and foreign spheres. He is condemned as a nut and a kook. But that was the common sense of our nation from 1789 to 1913.

The Old Right Conservatives' credo has been the same from the founding of our Republic to the present: Less government, more responsibility---and with God's help, a better nation.

In the 2008 Presidential race, there is no question as to whom the REAL conservative is. It is Ron Paul.

Why I'm for Ron Paul

2008-01-01T17:38:00.000-06:00

I know Texas Congressman Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Key West, Fla. of winning the Republican Presidential nomination. My friends tell me I'm wasting my vote. And others say Paul is a political "kook."

Nevertheless, I will do all I can to help Paul and I'll vote for him in the GOP primary on March 11th. The reason is the bankruptcy of ideas in the Republican Presidential race. ALL the candidates are for growing the government. The questions are which one will do it the least and the efficiency of that growth. Day by day some candidate has some scheme on how to attack global warming or combat Iran. And ALL of them support the war in Iraq.

I am not a neoconservative or a libertarian. I am like Ron Paul--an Old Right Conservative (hereafter abbreviated as ORC). I'm for giving the states more rights to chart their own destinies, stay out of foreign affairs and limit the powers of the Federal government. Unlike the New Left who wants us to pull out of Iraq because we are an evil and rotten people, I'm for pulling out because Iraq was never a direct threat to the safety and well-being of the US. If Saddam Hussein had those weapons of mass destruction, he would have gone after Israel or Iran--not the United States. Ron Paul is the only one who is in favor of pulling out of Iraq.

Most of all, I'm tired of big government running my life. Now the government is going to tell us what kind of light bulb we should use. No, I am NOT kidding. By 2012, the 100-watt incandescent light bulb will no longer be sold. You will have to use a CFL bulbs, or compact fluorescent. Indeed, the government may make it illegal for an individual to use an incandescent light bulb in his home. That is the goal of the environmental wackos. Other than Paul, I have YET to hear a word of protest about this dim bulb bill Congress passed just a couple of weeks ago. Right now, I'm stocking up on incandescent light bulbs. Let the Feds come after me.

When does all this nuttiness end? Why is Paul the only one protesting this idiocy? Where are Romney, Huckabee (He'll preach the bulbs to come on.), Giuliani, Thompson and McCain on the growth of idiocy on the part of government? When does government get out of our lives? In the People's Socialist Republic of Massachusetts, you can be fined $912 by the state for not having health insurance. This is freedom? Thank Mitt Romney for that. And this guy wants to be our President?

Where do we draw the line? Mike Huckabee wants a national ban on smoking. I don't smoke and I don't allow it in our office. I don't go to restaurants that have smoking. But that's MY business. I don't want government telling places you can't have smoking. Smoking bothers you? Boycott the place. But the last thing we need is government dictating to businesses they must ban smoking. For God's sake--is this the United States or a dictatorship?

Now there's a war on trans fats. Okay, we all know fatty foods are not good for you. But now New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg (who may run for President as an independent) demands all restaurants and fast-food places ban trans fats. You don't like foods with trans fats? Don't eat them. Can't you read the stinking ingredients? Or are you too stupid or lazy?

Government loves to run our lives so we can fit the images the elite wants us to be. We must not smoke (What about booze? Why isn't there a war on booze?), eat fatty foods, not have guns, not drive big cars (I drive a Beetle. But that's MY business--not the government's.), not use incandescent light bulbs, not be uninsured for health insurance, be socially tolerant of every perversion that hits and let the government dictate to us their diktats. And yet there is not ONE candidate other than Ron Paul who is complaining about omnipotent government snuffing out our liberties.

I'm tired of getting involved in every foreign dispute because we don't like the government. I was a cold warrior because I was totally opposed to communism. And yes, the Soviet Union and Red China were direct threats to our liberty. But the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union fell starting in 1989. Now we have the Islamofascists. It's strange we didn't mess with them until the first Bush had to wage war against Iraq in 1990-1991. That was a totally useless war that dragged us into the Middle East mosh pit. Now we are stuck in a permanent war in Iraq with very little chance of getting out in the next ten years. Iran could be our next war. The Middle East wars will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars with no end in sight. When do these foreign entanglements end? We are knee-deep in NATO. Do you know if Russia attacks Estonia, a member of NATO, we are obligated to come to Estonia's aid? We are talking armed conflict, folks.

I'll write in another post as to what the Old Right Conservative (ORC) philosophy is. But Ron Paul is a firm spear carrier for the Old Right. I'm tired of big government conservatism. In fact, I'm tired of big government period--both in the domestic and foreign spheres.

It's time for a change in direction in the GOP and the nation. It's time to elect Ron Paul as President.

Mike Huckabee: The GOP Liberal

2007-12-24T15:45:00.000-06:00

Much has been made of the meteoric rise of Ex-Governor of Arkansas Michael Dale Huckabee in the political polls in the past couple of months. He is wowing the social conservative voters of Iowa with his views on abortion and the social issues. He comes across as a good-ole-boy who can charm the socks off the average voter.

Nevertheless, he is the most liberal candidate on fiscal issues. And while a lot of Southern Baptists are supporting him because he is a former Southern Baptist preacher, he is actually a liberal in the Southern Baptist wars.

In 1979, the conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention (Hereafter abbreviated as "SBC.") wrested control from the moderate wing. They elected Adrian Rogers as President, who was a well-known conservative from Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tenn. When Huckabee became president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention in 1989, he appointed liberals to head major committees in that state convention. NOT ONCE DID HE APPOINT A CONSERVATIVE TO A MAJOR POST. Paul Pressler, one of the architects of the 1979 takeover of the SBC, considered Huckabee a liberal in the Baptist wars. He is not supporting Huckabee for President. Oh, yes. Huckabee will not allow the churches he formerly pastored to release any of his sermons he preached. How come?

I agree with him on abortion and gun rights. I have mixed feelings about his stand on the homosexual marriage issue. As an Old Right Conservative, I think the homosexual marriage issue should be settled on the state issue. If a state wishes to legalized homosexual marriage, that is that state's business. But under no circumstances should another state be forced to recognize that marriage. Huckabee would have a Constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.

His record as Arkansas' governor is one of fiscal liberalism. Under Bill Clinton, the per capita tax burden rate was 9.8%. When Huckabee left office, it was 11.1%. He was for raising taxes to pay for his pet programs. He wanted to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants to go to college paying the same tuition rate as in-state students. He was all for illegal immigration in his state.

When it came to crime he made Mike Dukakis look like a flaming conservative. In his 10 1/2 years as governor (July 15, 1996-January 9, 2007) he gave 1033 commutations. In the 17 1/2 years of his three predecessors, only 507 commutations were given out. One of his parolees, Wayne Dumond, went out and raped and murdered a woman.

I'll admit a Presidential candidate has a faith that influences his stands on politics. But there is a difference between the other Republican candidates and Huckabee. He is a Shining Path believer. He's personally against smoking. Fine. But he wants a NATIONWIDE ban on smoking. Period. Would we have a Federal Agency to Rid Tobacco (F.A.R.T.) to implement this? He lost a hundred pounds because he was diagnosed as a diabetic. He's to be commended for that. But he wants to spend Federal funds to make people lose weight. He has always been in favor of illegal immigration and giving them benefits because "That's what Jesus would do." His foreign policy would be "Christ-like" and initiate a lot of talks with hostile powers. Well, I have no objections to that. But what happens when they don't want to talk? He wants to abolish the income tax and have the "Fair Tax"of a 23% sales tax? He said that is the kind of tax a "true Christian" would support. A 23% sales tax on groceries and prescription drugs would be a horrendous burden to the poor.

In the past twenty-eight years, Arkansas had three out of four governors that had morals or ethic problems. Bill Clinton (1979-1981, 1983-1993) had problems with the fairer sex. Jim Guy Tucker (1993-1996) had financial scandals and was forced to resign. Frank White (1981-1983) was honest and had a scandal-free administration. And then there was Huckabee.

Huckabee didn't mess around with the babes. You won't find any scandal remotely connecting him to any of that. Give him credit for that. But he sure liked the gifts. He tried to run off with $70000 in furniture that was donated to the Governor's Mansion when he was governor. He was cited on five occasions by the state's ethics commission for his accepting gifts. He made appointments to various boards and commissions to some of those donors. He demanded the state GOP pay for some of his personal expenses.

Huckabee as a person is not as nice as he seems. On the outside, he is very charming, witty and kind. But when conservative Republican state legislators in Arkansas challenged him on his policies and programs, he would get nasty and vindictive with them. He would tell them they "didn't drink the same Jesus juice he did." He made it seem like you were challenging God Himself if you disagreed with him. Is this the guy you want for President?

Do not take Huckabee lightly in Mississippi. I have talked to a lot of people in the Southern Baptist church I attend and they like him a lot. Even though our Presidential primary isn't until March 11th, the primary may still be very important because the Republican Presidential nomination may still be undecided and in a state of flux. Huckabee comes from a state that borders Mississippi and the Southern Baptist connection may just be the right combination for victory in this state.

But if Huckabee is the nominee, the Clinton machine (assuming Hitlery is the nominee) will make toast out of him. He'll be beaten like a bongo drum. The Clinton machine will make him look like a religious kook and ethically challenged (They should talk. But the mainstream media will pick up the Clinton attacks and skewer Huckabee.).

Under no circumstances will I vote for Huckabee for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Conspiracy, anyone?

2007-12-01T17:16:00.000-06:00

There is an old cliche' I use when I go to political gatherings or observe politics on television and radio: Just when you are as cynical as you can get and you have reached the maximum in cynicism, you go to a political rally and find out there's room for more (cynicism).

As we all know, Sen. Chester Trent Lott has resigned his Senate seat. And we all know Congressman Chip Pickering announced he was not running for another House term. And, good ole Dickey Scruggs has been indicted for trying to bribe a Federal judge. For those of you in Mississippi who have been hiding under a rock for forty years, Dickey is Lott's brother-in-law.

Now I've been in politics since I was ten years old. I have seen things that seem so surreal it blows one's mind. In fact, a science fiction writer couldn't make some of this up. For example, when President Richard M. Nixon was reelected by eighteen million votes on November 7, 1972, nobody in his right mind would have thought Congressman Gerald Ford would be President in less than two years and Jimmy Carter would be President a little more than two years after that.

Now this is sheer speculation and maybe nut job thinking. But remember, this is politics where you can trust very few people. Sen. Lott knew all this stuff on Dickey was coming down months ago. He knows he will be implicated in some of Dickey's machinations (along with Mike Moore and Jim Hood) and he would be forced to resign. He told Chip Pickering he would resign by the end of the year. (For the politically uninitiated, Pickering is Lott's protege'.) Therefore, Pickering would be appointed as his successor to the U.S. Senate. So it would be best if Pickering were to announce he was not running for reelection.

Nutty? Think about it. Pickering is NOT going to run for a state office in 2011 or 2015. His cousin Stacey Pickering is now the Auditor-elect. Now Stacey is going to be running for something in 2011--either for reelection or for Lt. Governor. It all depends what Dewey Bryant does in 2011. If Dewey runs for Governor, Stacey will probably run for Lt. Governor. Chip would not run for Governor for two reasons: 1. Voters would be very reluctant to vote for members of a family (They are cousins.) for the two top state positions. 2. Chip would be engaged in a nasty primary against Dewey. Chip may win, but it would split the GOP.

It was Lott and the late Governor Kirk Fordice who got Chip his start in politics. Back in 1996, the top GOP areas were Rankin County, Lauderdale County and Forrest County. Cong. Sonny Montgomery stated he was retiring that year. Lott and Fordice encouraged Republicans in Rankin County to run for the Congressional seat. They were State Senators Mike Gunn and Dean Kirby and the 1994 Congressional GOP nominee James Dabbs. All three were led to believe they would get the support of the GOP poo bahs. Instead, in the first primary, those three candidates split the populous Rankin County GOP vote and Meridian's Bill Crawford and Hattiesburg's Chip Pickering slipped into the runoff. As we all know, Pickering won the runoff.

So who will Gov. Haley Barbour appoint? My gut feeling Chip Pickering will get the appointment. This may be his only opportunity to be Senator. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts Sen. Thad Cochran will run for reelection in 2014. If a Republican other than Pickering succeeds Lott, then the earliest Pickering can run would be 2020. If Cochran were to retire after his next term, than it could be 2014. And there would be others besides Pickering to run for that seat. He may fade into political obscurity for six years and lose to someone who has a "name". Does he want to risk not getting the appointment? And if he wants Barbour to appoint him, he'll get the appointment. The GOP poo bahs will see to that.

We'll see. The Chinese have an ancient curse for this: May you live in interesting times.

The Presidential Primary

2007-11-20T17:33:00.000-06:00

On March 11, 2008, Mississippi will have its Presidential and Congressional Primaries. While the list of 3rd Congressional District contenders hasn't finalized, those running for President has. So I'll comment on the Presidential candidates. Of course, the GOP and Democratic nominees might be already known by that date. But in the GOP race, it still might be up for grabs (I think Hitlery Clinton will be the presumptive Democratic nominee by March 11th.).

Right now, I have no firm idea who I will vote for in the GOP primary. I like Congressman Ron Paul's libertarian and Old Right stands, but I wonder about the kook base he is attracting. A lot of conspiracy and white supremacist groups are gung-ho for him. I think he is far more intelligent and knowledgeable than any of the candidates running, but I don't think he stands a chance of winning.

Ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee is an excellent social conservative candidate. He is a former Baptist preacher and his stands on the social issues are excellent. But he is a big government advocate. He wants a national sales tax but won't endorse a Constitutional amendment repealing the Federal income tax. He said the national sales tax would replace the income tax. That may be true for a few years. But you can bet your sweet bippy the income tax will be reinstituted. He also wants a national ban on smoking. Plus, he wants government instituted programs on how to teach people to lose weight (Have they ever heard of weighing yourself on a scale?). He's got a list of government programs he'd love to see promulgated. As governor of Arkansas, he was not tight with a buck. I guess he can preach to us when he gives us the nanny state.

Senator John McCain hasn't voted for a tax cut in years. Plus, he gave us that monstrosity called the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act. He's also another big government conservative. He would like to institute national service for all of the nation's youth. Just what we need--another big government program.

Ex-Gov. Willard Mitt Romney gave Massachusetts its socialized health care program. Watch it to become a disaster for the state. He's also one of the biggest flipfloppers you'd ever want to meet. At one time, he was a big abortion advocate. Now he's against abortion. At one time, he was all for gay rights. Now, he takes a hard stand on gay rights. I don't trust him on any of the issues. He reminds me of a fish out of water; flipflop, flipflop, flipflop. And I hate to say it, I have a problem voting for a temple Mormon.

Ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani did a good job as mayor of New York City. But he's a flaming liberal on the social issues. Sure, he said he would appoint strict constructionists to the U.S. Supreme Court. But his court appointments in New York City were flaming liberals. He worked hard for George McGovern in 1972 and has backed Democrats for higher office. Plus, this guy dressed in drag for a party. Is this guy all there?

Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson was fairly conservative as a Senator from Tennessee. But he was once pro-abortion. He seems to be better than most of the other candidates. He did get the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee. I'll wait and see on him.

Congressman Duncan Hunter is an excellent candidate and would probably be one of my top choices. But he has no name recognition and stands little chance of traction in the race. He's right on all the domestic issues. Ditto for Congressman Tom Tancredo. But he won't go anywhere.

Except for Ron Paul, all of them support the war in Iraq. As an Old Right conservative, I believe we have no business being involved in the Middle East. It is none of our business. I believe in having the strongest national defense in the world. I also believe we should mind our own business unless it directly affects the national security of the United States. Saddam Hussein was no choirboy. But he did not threaten the national security of the U.S. If he did have weapons of mass destruction, he would have used them on Israel or Iran.

In Mississippi, I would say Fred Thompson has the lead. But Rudy Giuliani has surprising strength here--especially in the urban areas. Many people in my church support Giuliani because they see him as a leader and can get things done--despite his stands on the social issues. John McCain has some support from the military veterans, but the feedback I get is he is too old to be President. And Mitt Romney has little support here. He is perceived as a flipflopper on the social issues and his religion is hurting him among fundamentalist Christians (Our church had a seminar for two Sundays on how cultic the Mormon "church" is. Rest assured: Not one of those people will vote for Romney, especially when they found out he was a temple Mormon. The fact he can baptize dead people and he and his wife can have a spiritual kingdom and rule on another planet blew a lot of people's minds.).

I just may vote for Ron Paul just to express my frustration with the direction the country is going in. But let's face it. None of these candidates inspire me enough to go out and work for them if he is the GOP nominee. (There's no way in the world I could vote for Hitlery.) If this is the best the GOP can do for Presidential candidates, the party is a lot weaker than it appears.

The Lack of Candidate Organizations

2007-11-19T16:45:00.000-06:00

Yesterday in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger's editorial page, David Hampton had an excellent article on candidate laziness. He wrote about the lack of organization of candidates and candidates mainly rely on big bucks for advertising. He is absolutely right.

The Democratic and Republican county executive committees should be the impetus for an organization for candidates. They should provide the foot soldiers for getting out the vote. Walking door-to-door is a pain in the neck (and feet), but that is the way to get out the vote. Telephone banks are becoming more and more ineffective. Many people are dropping their land line phones and using strictly cell phones, where the numbers are unlisted (so far). And a lot of people don't like being called because the calls are canned or scripted.

Whether the candidate is running for a Legislative House seat or a statewide campaign, he should have foot soldiers in every precinct and a strong organization that can coordinate the campaign. Most candidate organizations do not have that. Instead, the candidate thinks spending the big bucks will give you the victory. In many cases, that is so. But in a close race, the candidate with the best organization wins.

I served on Republican county committees in two states. In the state where I went to college, the requirement was if you were on the Party committee, you HAD to walk your precinct. Each precinct had a committeeman and a committeewoman. The two of them would walk the precinct together and report to the district chairman. And the district chairman would report to the state chairman. I remember giving up ten to fifteen Saturdays every two years walking precincts for the Republican slate. Two of us would walk the street. We'd walk from 9AM to 12PM, from 1PM to 6PM, and then from 7PM to 8:30PM. Sometimes, we'd get the door slammed in our faces. Other times, the voter would treat us to lunch. We would write on our note cards about the houses we visited, the reactions and whether or not there was a need for follow-up. By the way, this state had party registration. On Election Day, we had a caravan of cars to transport voters to the polls. Plus, we'd have precinct walkers to make sure people voted. Usually, the GOP candidate won. Money was not the big thing in the campaign. It was the campaign organization.

Mississippi has Party organizations, but they are not known for walking their precincts. Plus, the Party structure in the counties is poor. Each precinct should have a committeeman and a committeewoman. Now I know that would mean the Party Committees would be huge. In Rankin County, that would be 104 members. But these would be 104 hard-working members willing to work their precincts. The committeeman and committeewoman can monitor their precinct and note changes. This is the nitty-gritty of grass roots politics.

In the 2007, our neighborhood did not receive ONE visit from any candidate or his (her) representative during the general election campaign. In fact, there were ONLY two candidates who had people walking my precinct--- Charlie Ross's representatives and Mitch Childre himself. And that was during the primary campaign.

Money in a campaign is fine. Speaking engagements are fine. But a candidate and his workers should walk door to door on some days. You may think that's a candidate's waste of time. But that is where he connects with the voters and finds out what they are thinking. I know Gov. Barbour did that for State Sen. Richard White (who lost). But very few candidates do that.

A candidate considering a run for office should get his organization together a year or more before he runs. He should have organizations in every county and in due time, in every precinct. That is time consuming, but that is one of the big keys to a successful campaign. County chairmen should have frequent meetings with the precinct workers. I found out walking precincts can be very effective if you have two people working a street. You may have a neighbor you are not crazy about and the other worker could visit him. Besides, the fellowship and exchange of information is much better with two people. These precinct people would report to the county chairman and let him know what is going on. With almost everybody having cell phones, that shouldn't be a problem.

Do you remember Mike Parker's unsuccessful run for Governor in 1999? The biggest complaint was not the money. The biggest complaint the GOP had very few grass roots workers to get out the vote. There was no enthusiasm for the candidate and getting workers was a pain in the rear. I read many an article about the GOP having very few volunteers to walk the precincts or phone to get out the vote. A lot of the GOP poo bahs were willing to give the big bucks to the candidate but would not walk the precincts or get friends to walk the precincts for Parker. He was heavily favored to defeat Lt. Governor Ronnie Musgrove. Instead, he lost by a very narrow margin.

Party organization is a new political animal in Mississippi. Until 1972, there was hardly anything called a Republican Party. County Party executive committees exist mainly to certify candidates running under their banner and raise bucks. The Rankin County GOP brags they raise $30000 to $40000 a year for candidates. That is very impressive. But how many of them are willing to walk the precincts to get out the vote? I have found out voters like that one-on-one contact. They are much more likely to vote for the candidate you walk for.

For a very effective Party Committee, there should be a committeeman and committeewoman from every precinct. In many Party Committees, many small areas are shut out and have no representation on the Committee. Not only does that create resentment in the area that has been shut out, it could mean that precinct may not be worked during the election campaign (Admittedly, it may be nearly impossible to find a person from that area.). Party caucuses in that precinct would elect the committeeman and committeewoman. The next week the newly elected precinct people would elect officers for the Party executive committee and delegates to the state Party convention.

Yes, there are 1899 precincts in the state. That would mean a potential 3798 Party workers throughout the state. That is one strong grass-roots organization. Having Party people give bucks to the Party is great. But isn't it time we brought back the people who walk the precincts and knock on the doors? Both parties would benefit by doing that. And maybe politics can get back to the grass roots as it used to be.

My Take on the Nov. 6th Election Results

2007-11-17T17:42:00.000-06:00

It's been a while before I posted. I was at a tax seminar last week and I've been playing catch up with the work in the office. Payroll tax deposits are due on the 15th of the month and sales tax reports are due on the 20th.

I was correct in seven of the eight statewide races. The only one where I was wrong was the MDAC Commissioner's race. I thought Rickey Cole would pull it out. I was wrong. I was surprised at the amount of votes Les Riley got in that race--about 7.55% of the total. In Rankin County, he got 11%. I figured a lot of conservative Republicans would vote for Riley and I was right. This is one race where Barbour's coattails pulled a Republican through to victory (Dr. Moo's 50.8% ain't a landslide.). Dr. Moo (Lester Spell) didn't deserve reelection, but the voters thought otherwise.

I was right in the PSC race and MDOT race. I wrote that the MDOT district was leaning Republican and the PSC district was leaning Democratic. A political maven (now deceased) told me the contradiction. People will vote Republican when it comes to management issues, which is what MDOT is. But people will vote populist, i.e. Democratic, when it comes to setting utility rates. I was right in my calls. (For the boob who commented on my last post, municipal election commissioners know NOTHING on the design of a state district. Municipal election commissioners deal with MUNICIPAL boundaries.)

Rudy Warnock blew the race for MDOT Commissioner with his negative ads in the last week of the campaign. He stated Dick Hall raised his salary and his pension (Untrue. The State Legislature does that.), spent millions to renovate the office building (Untrue. Again, the State Legislature appropriated the money.), and the helicopter (Hall gave an excellent rebuttal to that charge.). It was pretty bad mudslinging on Warnock's part and it cost him a lot of votes.

I have read many blogs giving the base vote for each party. Most of them have said the GOP has a rock-solid base of 40% and the Democrats 39%. These numbers come from the losing race of Shawn O'Hara (Democrat) and Al Hopkins (Republican). The numbers may be true on the Democratic side. But they are not true on the Republican side.

Let's take a statistic to lunch. Almost all of O'Hara's vote came from black voters. Tate Reeves, the incumbent Republican State Treasurer, received 15% to 18% of the black vote. The white vote went about 90% for Reeves. O'Hara spent just $1300 yet he received 39% of the vote! All he had to do was have a (D) after his name. He was considered a "kook" candidate with a reputation of advocating snow cone stands at rest stops. He was a joke. I predicted Reeves would get 73% to 77% of the vote. O'Hara's 39% shows how strong the base vote of the Democratic Party really is.

On the other hand, Al Hopkins was a credible candidate. He spent a lot of bucks and his advertising campaign was very good. He made a lot of strong valid points against Attorney General Jim Hood's trial attorney contributions. He was gaining strength as the election campaign went on. He got 40% of the vote.

But that is not the base Republican vote. To get that, we must go back to the 2003 Secretary of State's race. The Republican nominee, Julio Del Castillo, got 201765 votes or 23.47% of the total vote. Del Castillo was a total unknown who spent very little money (Believe it or not, he took DeSoto County by a landslide.). The winner, incumbent Eric Clark received 610461 votes or 71.02% (There was a Reform Party candidate.). Allocating the third party vote to both parties, the GOP base vote is about 25%. That is it. The reason is there is no guarantee white voters will vote Republican, but there is a very strong guarantee black voters will vote at least 82% Democratic (I'm talking about state office races. I know Sen. Thad Cochran gets a near-majority black vote when he runs.).

In the Governor's race, Haley Barbour hoped to get 20% of the black vote. From the numbers I can see, he got about 9% to 10% of the black vote. That is an improvement over the 6% he received in 2003. But that is nowhere near what he was hoping to get. What helped Barbour was a lower than expected black voter turnout. Barbour's vote was down 55301 from what it was in 2003. But the Democratic vote was down 110024. If the downturn was equal for both parties, Barbour would have received about 54% of the vote. None of the Republican candidates did well among black voters. The best was Tate Reeves' 15% to 18%. The GOP has a long way to go before blacks start pushing the (R) button.

So for 2011, we can conclude the base vote for the Democratic Party is 39% and the base vote for the GOP is 25%. Perhaps all of you out there in the blogosphere can give me a better analysis to what the base vote for each party is. I've spent some time analyzing the vote trying to come up with the base vote. But all of this may change when party registration comes to Mississippi. We'll see.

The Goodman Fearless Forecast

2007-11-05T17:04:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow is Election Day. I have followed the state races closer than I ever have before, thanks to the Internet and blogs such as www.cottonmouth.blogspot.com and www.majorityinmississippi.blogspot.com. And unlike other races, I was heavily involved in some of the races. So, here is the Goodman Fearless Forecast.

Governor: Republican Haley Barbour will easily be reelected. Democrat John Arthur Eaves' campaign had much better advertising, but he never explained how he was going to pay for some of his programs. Barbour became a shoo-in because of his leadership prowess in dealing with Hurricane Katrina. Barbour will get 55%-58% of the vote.

Lt. Governor: Regrettably, Republican Dewey Bryant will be elected. It'll be closer than the Governor's race. Democrat Jamie Franks was a far better candidate, but he couldn't shake the "liberal" label. Plus, he never did hit hard on Bryant's liberal stands on the social issues. www.flipfloppingphil.blogspot.com gave Franks plenty of ammunition. Bryant will get 54%-56% of the vote.

Secretary of State: Republican Delbert Hosemann will be elected. Democrat Robert Smith is against voter ID and cleaning up the corruption in many elections in this state while Hosemann is for voter ID. Also, Smith is very arrogant. Hosemann will get 53%-56% of the vote.

Treasurer: Republican Tate Reeves will easily defeat Democratic politikook Shawn O'Hara. This race will show the rock bottom Democratic base of the vote in a state race. Reeves will get 73%-77% of the vote.

Attorney General: Democratic incumbent Jim Hood will be reelected. Republican Al Hopkins is gaining strength but will fall short. He has made traction on hitting Hood's buddies getting juicy contracts and then contributing bucks to Hood's campaign. If Charlie Ross had run against Hood, Ross would have had a much better chance. Look for a Hood-Bryant contest for Governor in 2011. Hood will get 54%-58% of the vote.

State Auditor: Republican Stacey Pickering will be elected. Democrat Mike Sumrall is far more qualified for the post, but he does not have the money or name recognition Pickering has. But this race will be fairly close. Pickering, an ordained minister and a PR flack (Those are two fantastic qualifications for the post which deals with auditing and accounting.), will get 52%-54% of the vote.

MDAC Commissioner: Democrat Rickey Cole will be elected by the Democratic State House in January, but he will get a plurality of the vote. Constitution Party Candidate Leslie Riley is draining a lot of Republican incumbent Lester Spell's vote. In the past five days, I've had a lot of staunch Republicans tell me they'll never vote for Cole but the Beef Plant fiasco is preventing them for voting for Spell (In my office, the staunch Republicans are voting for Riley.). At first, I thought Riley would get about 1% of the vote. But I think he could get about ten percent of the vote. Cole will get 47%-48%, Spell 45%-47%, and Riley 5%-8% of the vote. I know of very few, if any Democrats voting for Riley. But believe me, I know a lot of Republicans who are voting for Riley.

Insurance Commissioner: Republican Mike Chaney will be elected. Democrat Gary Anderson will not win not because of the issues, but because he is black. There are still a lot of lame-brained idiots who won't vote for a black no matter what the circumstances, but they exist. And they are a lot more numerous than just a small fringe group. Chaney will get 51%-53% of the vote.

PSC Commissioner--Central: Democrat Lynn Posey will be elected. This is basically a Democratic district and Cochran held it only because of his name. Plus, Cochran was a excellent Commissioner. He was quick to return phone calls and was always friendly. Republican Charles Barbour has baggage because of his wife's financial shenanigans with FEMA contracts. And the Hinds County Board of Supervisors, which he is one of the members, is the biggest joke in the metro area. Posey will get 55%-58% of the vote.

MDOT Commissioner--Central: Republican Dick Hall will be reelected. He's a poor excuse of an MDOT Commissioner, but he is running in a Republican district. Democrat Rudy Warnock is a very attractive and well qualified candidate, but he will fall short. His negative ads on Hall have hurt him. Hall will get 52%-55% of the vote.

State Rep. Dist. 61: Republican incumbent Ray Rogers will be reelected. Democrat Ponto Downing is almost non-existent in this race. His campaign biography in the Voter's Guide talked more what he would do for Hinds County and Jackson than Pearl, which is 98% of the district. He forgets he lives in Pearl. Rogers will get 70%-75% of the vote.

As for the State Legislature, I talked to a Republican legislator (unopposed) and gave me some surprising predictions. This legislator is very conservative and was a Republican when Republicans could fit in a phone booth. He predicts the Republicans will lose seven Senate seats and will gain three to six House seats. He and I agreed on who would win the state races.

We'll see tomorrow night.

Lester Spell's Attack on Rickey Cole

2007-11-03T18:14:00.000-05:00

I don't know if you received the colorful enlarged postcard from Lester Spell on Friday, but I did. It was a doozy. It pointed out Rickey Cole is a liberal Democrat who is not fit to be the MDAC Commissioner. According to the postcard, "Rickey Cole, too Slick for Agriculture," was emblazoned on it. It went on and on how Rickey Cole was some kind of flaming commie liberal while Lester Spell was more conservative than Ronald Reagan.

Let's look at the facts. It is true Cole was a Democratic Party delegate for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. As I recall, Cole was the Democratic Party chairman of the state in 2004. Wouldn't it make sense for him to be a delegate? The postcard also stated as a delegate to those conventions he supported "Democratic ideas" like abortion, gun control and higher taxes. Now unless you are a space alien who just landed in this state, Cole has ALWAYS been opposed to abortion and gun control. I have followed Cole's campaigns and I also never have known him to advocate higher taxes. Perhaps someone can show me contrary evidence. Indeed, I've listened to him on talk radio and he sounds quite conservative to me. And I am very conservative (Sometimes that puts me at odds with the GOP and President Bush's nutty spending programs.).

Now he has advocated raising taxes when he was the Democratic Party chair. But he was a spokesman for the party, not his own man. When I was on the RCREC for twelve years, I supported candidates I could not stand. Such are the vagaries of serving on a political party committee. Did Spell expect Cole to tell the state Democratic Party he was going to speak differently than what they wanted? I'll be the first to admit there are too many turkeys in the Democratic Party who advocate raising taxes, such as Rep. John Mayo in the Delta (This gobbler wants a 6% income tax bracket. Jerk.).

I'm confused by the postcard's statement "Rickey Cole led the charge to kick conservatives out of 'his' Democratic Party." Huh? As I recall, he wanted more conservatives in the Democratic Party. He was afraid the state Democratic Party would become so liberal it would be a constant loser. Actually, the purge started AFTER he stepped down as party chair. I'd like to see evidence Cole led the charge to expel conservatives out of the Democratic Party.

I will agree with the over sized postcard on one thing: It is correct when it states labor unions, the National Education Association and trial lawyers are the three best friends of the Democratic Party. And Cole has affirmed that. But he was stating fact. They ARE the three best friends of the Democratic Party.

But on no space on that postcard did it state Spell was once a Democrat. In fact, he was a staunch Democrat until the mess on the beef plant came out. Then--voila--he switched parties and now was a tub-thumping Republican. He had no qualms about running under the Democratic Party banner in 1995, 1999, and 2003. He sure thought highly of Rickey Cole in the 2003 campaign.

In fact, he cared as much for the GOP back in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s as my cats care about being near rocking chairs. He had no use for the GOP and he let that be known in county races when Rankin County was still Democratic (That changed with the 1991 elections.). He was a good ole boy Democrat and he thought Republicans were a little bit lower than a bullfrog's belly. In his city races for mayor of Richland, he ran as a Democrat. BUT TO SAVE HIS POLITICAL TUSH HE IS NOW A FIRE-BREATHING REPUBLICAN! What principle. What political courage.

In our office, all but one of us are Republicans (One bookkeeper is a Democrat.). ALL of us are voting for Rickey Cole and so are our acquaintances. In fact, my barber is a die-hard Republican. He said he was voting for only two Democrats--Mike Sumrall for State Auditor and Rickey Cole. He is well-known in the area and is politically astute. All of us think Spell is arrogant for not taking ANY responsibility for the failure of the beef plant.

As for the beef plant failure, wasn't there a goat farm failure too? Now maybe Cole is no flaming conservative like Spell. But since when is it "conservative" to waste taxpayer dollars on frivolous and idiotic projects? At least Cole knows SOMETHING about farming. Spell has been a veterinarian until he got into politics. What does HE KNOW about farming?

Let's do the state a great service on November 6th. Let's vote in an honorable man and a knowledgeable farmer for MDAC Commissioner. Let's all vote for Rickey Cole.

Barbour Versus Posey: What a Choice

2007-11-02T17:40:00.000-05:00

Republican Charles Barbour is running against Democrat Lynn Posey for the PSC--Central District. I have never seen two sorrier candidates. It is not which one is the best, but which one is the least worse. Neither one of them is fit to walk in present Commissioner Nielsen Cochran's shoes. Nevertheless, you have to vote for one of them (or leave the ballot blank).

I'm voting for Posey for the following reasons:

1. Since I live in Pearl, I have followed the Hinds County Board of Supervisors meetings. I can tell you Barbour has been a poor supervisor. While it is true he has voted against tax increase twenty-three times, the financial management of Hinds County has been very poor. The only person who has any sense on that Board is Peggy Calhoun.
2. One Barbour is enough. I cannot stand family dynasties, no matter who it is (Barbour is Haley's nephew.). I'm voting for Haley Barbour. I just can't vote for another Barbour. (It's also a reason, but not THE reason, I'm not voting for Stacey Pickering for State Auditor.)
3. Barbour's wife Rosemary has gotten some sweetheart deals from FEMA and has gotten in hot water for financial improprieties. Maybe Charles Barbour had nothing to do with it, but he did benefit financially.
4. Lynn Posey is a populist. I'll bet you he'll give the utilities grief if they try to raise rates. Maybe Barbour will do likewise. But somehow I just don't trust him as much as I trust Posey.

I would have preferred Pearl Mayor Jimmy Foster, who was a far better candidate than Barbour. Also, he has managerial experience in running a city and getting along with the Board of Aldermen. But Foster did not have the money to run an effective campaign or the name recognition (A kitty cat with the name of "Barbour" could get a passel of votes.). So the GOP got stuck with Barbour.

Lynn Posey has been hit hard for voting to raise taxes 110 times. That is the main reason I'm reluctant to vote for him. But because of the above reasons, I think he'll do a much better job than Charles Barbour.

Hold your nose in the voting booth and vote for Lynn Posey.

We Desperately Need Mike Sumrall for State Auditor

2007-10-31T17:29:00.000-05:00

I watched Stacey Pickering's commercial for State Auditor. I am SO glad he has a loving wife and two children. And I was impressed by his narrative on what a great guy he is and how great he looked in that sofa. I am certain that qualifies him for the job as State Auditor.

I received a large postcard from the Mississippi GOP talking about the "Liberal Team Bus." On the bus was a picture of Mike Sumrall. Now the seventh reason why your vote should be counted (to vote GOP, obviously) is Mike Sumrall "admits he couldn't even pass the test to become a certified public accountant." Now that is ONE big reason.

First of all, I don't see where Stacey Pickering has ever taken the CPA exam. Secondly, Sumrall has vowed to take the exam if he is elected. In due time, I believe he will pass it.

Since I did pass the CPA exam (the November 1983 exam), I can tell you it is a very hard exam. Few people pass it the first time. You have to put in a lot of study and study a lot of material. When I took it, you were not even allowed to use a calculator. The exam proctors would give you two sheets of legal paper and that is where you could do your calculations. Just have some pencils and some erasers. One calculation error and you could lose a lot of points on a section of the exam.

But Sumrall DOES have the experience to do a good job as State Auditor. He knows what a good audit is. He will not have to have on-the-job training to figure out what constitutes a good audit. He has had more than twenty years working in the OSA's office and other areas of financial management.

What experience does Pickering have in accounting? Indeed, does he even KNOW the difference between a debit and credit? Has he ever taken an accounting course? What makes you think he's going to stay on as State Auditor once he's elected? You can rest assured he'll be looking for another elective post after four years. Debits and credits are not a turn on for someone trying to have a political career and move up the political ladder. Pickering, like the individual who currently holds the post, will make it a political kingdom for his own political ambitions. Thanks to the current State Auditor, the OSA actually got a failing grade by a peer group of nationwide auditors. Turnover is high and the PEER Committee gave the OSA a very poor grade. Do you want to continue that? If so, Pickering is your man. Pickering can talk about what he's going to do to improve the OSA, but don't swallow it. He won't know what to do in that job from Day One.

Mike Sumrall has vowed not to seek higher office if he is elected State Auditor. I believe him. He has great ideas on how to improve the office and make it the top-notch office it was under the days of W. Hamp King. He will not make it a political satrap for him, but a top-notch professional agency which all Mississippians can be proud of.

Take it from this CPA: Mike Sumrall is the ONLY choice for State Auditor.

Jamie Franks' Last Chance--One Week Left

2007-10-30T17:28:00.000-05:00

If I were to call the race today for Lt. Governor, I would predict Dewey Bryant would defeat Jamie Franks for the post. I have talked to people and the "liberal" label is beginning to take hold on Franks. Franks can deny the label all he wants, but it's perception--and not reality--that decides the election.

However, there is a week left in the campaign. And in politics, a week is an eternity. I have seen leads dissipate into deficits in just one week. You can look at state elections and Federal elections for such swings. So Franks still has time to turn it around and win.

Here is what Franks has to do:

1. Paint Bryant as a liberal. Remember, he ran as the liberal candidate for Rankin County Supervisor back in the 1988 special election.
2. For the interim vacancy on the Rankin County Board of Supervisors, he wrote a letter to then-Gov. Ray Mabus' office and stated he had always been a Democrat and he wanted the appointment. I found that out from one of Larry Swales' (The eventual winner of that race) top campaign aides.
3. Dewey Bryant started out as pro-abortion. I wrote on a previous post on how vehemently he was for a woman's "right to choose." But don't take my word for it. It was also reported he was pro-abortion in the Rankin County News of April 17, 1991. (No, I did not write a letter to the News or contact any of the reporters.)
4. He is AGAINST cutting taxes. After all, he is bitterly opposed to cutting the grocery tax on working people. Conservatives are always favoring tax cuts. Why not Dewey?

Franks has GOT to point all of this out to have a chance. If there is one issue that Mississippians feel strongly about, it is abortion. Now Dewey can talk about his pro-life credentials all he wants. But he became pro-life ONLY because he knew he would never get elected as a pro-abortion advocate. Franks has been pro-life from the start. If Franks pointed that out, Dewey's support would melt like a snowball on pavement in Key West, Fla. on a summer day.

Now Franks and his campaign staff may not think abortion is not that big of a deal. So I'll remind him about the 1991 Governor's race. Incumbent Governor Mabus was heavily favored to defeat Republican nominee Kirk Fordice. But I remember the bumper stickers that were on many a car that showed a fetus saying "Savus from Mabus." Everybody in politics knew Mabus was strongly pro-abortion. But he and his staff thought that wasn't a big deal.

The Sunday before the election there were flyers in many Baptist churches contrasting Mabus' pro-abortion stance versus Fordice's pro-life stance. On Election Day, Fordice stunned Mabus with a narrow victory. The margin was only by fifteen thousand votes. You can bet your sweet bippy the abortion issue was THE issue that defeated Mabus.

I analyzed the 1991 results versus the 1987 election results. In 1987, Mabus faced Democrat-turned-Republican Jack Reed. Mabus got 53% of the vote. In 1991, he got 49% of the vote. Mabus actually picked up black support in those four years and stayed the same in the white urban areas. It was the rural and the blue collar areas where Mabus lost heavily--in some cases losing more than 10% of the vote from his 1987 run. What was the reason? Mabus was perceived as liberal on abortion and that cost him reelection.

So Franks has a choice--go nuclear in the last week of the campaign or go down in flames. Right now, he is perceived as the liberal (His support of Kerry-Edwards in 2004 is hurting him.). But if he hits Dewey hard on the social issues and paint him as a flip-flopper who is pro-life to further his political career, he has a good chance of winning.

But the hour is getting late. What will Franks do?

Why We Need Jamie Franks for Lt. Governor

2007-10-29T17:40:00.000-05:00

I have written many a blog ripping Dewey Bryant to shreds. But there is a positive reason for choosing Jamie Franks as Lt. Governor. And that is we need an independent voice in the Lt. Governor's position.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, Gov. Haley Reeves Barbour will be reelected by a good margin--anywhere from ten to sixteen percentage points. I don't see an upset for Governor on November 6th. All the Republican candidates--except Delbert Hosemann--is running on being a workhorse for Haley. But I wonder if that's what Mississippi wants---or needs.

It is very rare when a Lt. Governor is a parrot for the Governor. I can't recall whenever a Lt. Governor has run for office saying he (or she) will be a "wing man" or parrot for the Governor. This is the first time I can recall a Lt. Governor candidate stating he'll be a parrot for the Governor. But Dewey has made it a priority he'll be a parrot for Haley.

Jamie Franks will tell Barbour when he is right and when he is wrong. He won't be a parrot for the Governor but an independent voice. He won't deliberately block Barbour's programs just because he is a Democrat. If it is good for the state, he will support Barbour. But on an issue such as the sales tax swap, he'll oppose Barbour. And I believe the voters want someone who will stand up for them and not just a political leader.

Dewey is boxed in. Don't believe him one bit when he says he'll oppose Barbour when he feels the Governor is wrong. Amy Tuck could oppose Barbour because she wasn't going anywhere politically. Her term expires in January 2008 and she couldn't run for reelection. What did she have to lose by opposing Barbour on the tax swap?

But Dewey has a lot to lose by opposing the Governor. Even though Barbour can't run for reelection in 2011, you can bet your sweet tushie he'll have a big say in who will be the GOP nominee. Dewey wants to be Governor so badly it's like watching a big coon dog looking at a juicy steak. If the GOP nominee in 2011 is elected, he'll run for reelection in 2015. Say Dewey is reelected in 2011, he'll be term-limited in 2015. He'll lose in a Republican primary against an incumbent GOP governor and if the governor is defeated for reelection because of the party split, Dewey will be hated for splitting the party. But what is Dewey to run for? After all, he's the Republican Bill Clinton (sans babes) who lives for politics and has no life other than politics and satisfying his big ego (and combing his coiffed hair).

Now Haley may be a good ole boy with that thick Southern drawl, but he is not a jerk. He is a political wizard. You piss off Haley and he'll give you the screws. He has the intelligence, the contacts, and the political genius. He can politically turn you into cow manure. If Dewey is to go anywhere in the GOP, he'll have to royally kiss Haley's tush or he's dead meat in 2011 if he should run for governor (He'll be one of the stupidest men ever to serve as governor if he is elected.). Haley holds grudges and he has a strong party machinery. Call Haley the Mayor Richard Daley of the Mississippi GOP. And Haley won't be fading away after he steps down as Governor. He'll still be a mover and shaker in GOP politics. So don't believe any of Dewey's horse manure he'll oppose Barbour if he needs to. If you believe he will, I have a gold mine in the back of my yard planted there by Martians I'd love to sell you.

If I wanted stupidity and a thoroughly gutless Lt. Governor who is vain, hot-headed, a liar and vindictive, I'd vote for Dewey Bryant.

I want a Lt. Governor who has brains, is honest, and has a political backbone. That is why I'm voting for Jamie Franks.