Jackson Free Press

OK, here's a riddle? Why should it possibly matter that a potential governor of the state went off to Washington once and helped sell out the state's jobs and economy to corporate interests that wanted to move outside the country, and take jobs with them? It's about integrity, stupid! And about whether the candidate is serious when he says that he cares, really cares about the state of Mississippi and its people, including the ones who lost jobs due to NAFTA. Salter is apparently worried enough that this issue is going to derail his candidate, as it probably should, that he wrote again today about why NAFTA doesn't possibly matter to Barbour's candidacy. Then, he complains at the end of the column that Musgrove couldn't produce "the first scintilla of evidence" to prove that he didn't once support NAFTA (but Salter doesn't produce "the first scintilla of evidence" that says he did). And he manages to argue, without logic, that both elephants and donkeys in Washington supported NAFTA in those dark days—which I would agree is a huge black mark against Clinton's so-called legacy, which is shot anyhow—and, therefore somehow, that means that Barbour is off the hook for making money trying to push the NAFTA agenda on both parties back then. Please. Of course this issue matters to Mississippians (and is certainly more relevant than either Tuck or Blackmon's take on abortion). The fact is, if Barbour was willing to sell his state out then to national and international (and personal financial) interests, what happens when/if he's in office here? Let me guess: He leads the charge to stop "lawsuit abuse" on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Ah. There's another charge for Real Mississippi.