Jackson Free Press

Is it just me, or does it seem like a weird question to ask two candidates for a major office to waste time asking candidates if they can say something nice about each other? I wonder if the moderator would ask a man the same question? "Now, Mr. Barbour, don't you have something sweet to say about Mr. Musgrove, now?" Very odd. Seems like that space could have been filled with discussion about some major issue or another.

Read about the debate: http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0310/31/m06a.html

Previous Comments

ID

136248

Comment

Actually, both candidates for Governor were asked this question in a recent debate. Barbour said that the Governor is a hard worker.

Author

David

Date

2003-10-31T12:34:48-06:00

ID

136249

Comment

OK, I feel better. But I still think it's a dumb question. I mean, what are they going to say? I rather hear them asked, like James Lipton on Actor's Studio, for their favorite curse word. Seriously, I just want questions that dig into the issues that matter to Mississippians, not troll for sound bites.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-31T12:43:06-06:00

ID

136250

Comment

It's be funny if it weren't so dumb. If we're after "niceness" in our campaigns, why don't we ask them about their incredibly negative campaigns? Ask them why they run them, what they hope to accomplish, if they feel like deceiving people with partial truths is a good way to run a campaign? It's a classic superficial question about an issue that warrants serious discussion. And it cracks me up that Tuck and Blackmon couldn't find anything good to say about each other. I actually find it kind of refreshing that they didn't try to spout insincerities on stage. But, man, what a lame question!

Author

Kate

Date

2003-10-31T12:44:10-06:00

ID

136251

Comment

It's sad that they couldn't find anything positive or nice to say about each other. They don't see each other as people. Makes you wonder how they see us little people.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-10-31T13:14:09-06:00

ID

136252

Comment

I found the debate very enlightening. Blackmon was unable to articulate any of her points in an intelligent manner. She seemed to be unprepared for anything other than attacking Amy Tuck. I appreciate the caller asking the question, because it gave a good insight into the interpersonal skills of each candidate. Blackmon was unable to come up with even a sensible answer, while Amy chose to compliment Blackmon on her willingness to work hard for the issues she supports. While Tuck might not have something "sweet" to say, she does at least have respect for her opponent. I think it says a lot, because in the end, the lieutenant governorís job is to work with and lead a very complex group of Senators, most of whom don't agree on anything. If Blackmon is unable to communicate effectively, or to respect the people she disagrees with, how can she lead?

Author

BarbaraBlackmon.com Webmaster

Date

2003-10-31T16:31:23-06:00

ID

136253

Comment

I didn't see the debate, but Webmaster's take on it doesn't sound quite right. Do you really think that Blackmon earned a BA, an MBA, an LLM, and a JD; has held elected office for x years; is a wealthy attorney; and is a well-respected lobbyer on the senate floor but can't communicate? And from what I've read, I'd hardly call Tuck's response a "compliment." Seems like neither respects the other, which isn't necessarily a feather in either of their caps.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-10-31T16:37:05-06:00

ID

136254

Comment

"If Blackmon is unable to communicate effectively, or to respect the people she disagrees with, how can she lead?" wrote the BarbaraBlackmon.com Webmaster (an anti-Blackmon site, by the way, despite its tricky domain). The same can easily be said for Ms. Tuck. I didn't hear the whole debate (forgot to tape it), but the part I heard sounded like Tuck tried to bring every question back to "tort reform," which of course is an incredible insult of the intelligence of anyone listening. It is the U.S. Chamber line, though, and she repeats it well as a New Republican. It'll be interesting to see what Mississippians think after they elect all these so-called tort-reformers who immunize corporations to the nth degree, and suddenly life isn't any better, or easier, and might even be harder, for the everyday citizen. It's just tragic that it may have to get to that point before people realize the snooker that's under way.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-31T16:48:38-06:00

ID

136255

Comment

BTW, in the part that I heard, Blackmon was certainly communicating more directly to citizens than was Tuck, who clearly was talking to industry. Blackmon was very articulate in talking about job creation and the cost of drugs for the elderly. I don't have a problem with either candidate pointing out what their opponent doesn't do -- that's not attacking, to me. That's debating. They're not supposed to sit there and throw niceties at each other. They're supposed to discuss the specifics of their plan and why it's different/better than their opponent's plan, and then the opponent gets to respond in kind. Of course, this isn't the format that most political debates follow these days. For the most part, they each stand there and spout sound bites.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-31T16:52:18-06:00

ID

136256

Comment

I'll be the first to say that tort "reform" is anything but. The legislature overstepping its bounds on this issue, however, can be dealt with through the courts. I *did* watch the entire debate. I was taken aback by how poorly Ms. Blackmon communicated the things she wanted to say. Nia, I agree, she's gotten this far because she has dome something right, but from the performance last night, public speaking isn't it. The job she wants requires her to be more than just some glorified office manager (as she claimed to be after a lawsuit was filed against her for stealing funds intended for victims of asbestos) and actually interact with people she doesn't agree with. I don't know if she can do that. I'm disappointed by both of the candidates. Neither of them are the people I would have chosen for the spot. I don't, however, think that Ms. Blackmon is the better of the two.

Author

Barbara.com Webmaster

Date

2003-10-31T16:58:36-06:00

ID

136257

Comment

Webmaster, it's good to know that you're willing to criticize both candidates, but your Web site is certainly taking sides, I'd say. Not that you don't have that right. We should all stand up for what we believe in. I should ask: what specifically did you think Tuck communicated well last night? Also, do you feel strongly that Ms. Tuck can communicate well with people she disagrees with -- it seems that she's had trouble even communicating with people she agrees with (once she decides who they are). Also, we should note for the record that the lawsuit you mention was dismissed by a judge this week as frivolous, was it not?

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-31T17:04:22-06:00

ID

136258

Comment

You are correct; the lawsuit was dismissed, but is in the process of being appealed. I'd encourage you to listen to Kim Wade tonight on WJNT 1180, he is supposed to be discussing the issue with attorneys for both sides. I've not read the pleadings, but from the reports I've heard, the judge's dismissal was improper. After watching the debate, I felt that Tuck has more of a business-oriented approach, which is necessary in our state. Both candidates want to improve education, healthcare, and care for seniors, so there is not much difference there. I think Tuckís attitude and goals will be more consistent with attracting business and industry to the state, however. After seeing all the people who have come to support Barbour in the state, from the President on down, I think that a Barbour-Tuck team would be best for the state. The Republicans have a need to demonstrate a program to increase jobs in the entire nation, and I think that Mississippi will be a place they use as a test bed for those programs over the next year. If the President and his administration can point to Mississippi next year and show that a Republican plan with Republican leadership has moved us increase the available jobs, it would certainly not hurt Bushís chances of re-election. As a side benefit, all Mississippians would gain a better economic environment. Blackmonís election, I feel, would stand in the way of this since the national leadership would simply look elsewhere.

Author

Barbara.com Webmaster

Date

2003-10-31T17:23:27-06:00

ID

136259

Comment

Er, I'm not clear on why Barbour getting elected would get us any more pork from the federal government than we already get with 2 republican senators. Are you saying we should vote for whichever party currently holds power at the federal level? That just makes no sense to me. yeah, they'd like a Barbour success, but I'm not sure what they can really do to help him, other than raise money for his campaign.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-10-31T17:31:48-06:00

ID

136260

Comment

Bush has a big problem coming up. In one year, he's going to have to demonstrate a workable program to increase the number of jobs. A Republican administration in our state would make Mississippi a very attractive choice as a place to test such programs. Such an administration would be more apt to give credit to Bush for the plan than would one involving Musgrove or Blackmon. I'm not saying that is what is going on, but with the large number of high profile visitors stumping for Barbour, it sure seems like a possibility.

Author

Barbara.com Webmaster

Date

2003-10-31T17:37:28-06:00

ID

136261

Comment

I see how success in MS would help Bush, just now how Bush would help MS. Which is what you implied when you wrote "After seeing all the people who have come to support Barbour in the state, from the President on down, I think that a Barbour-Tuck team would be best for the state."

Author

Kate

Date

2003-10-31T17:42:35-06:00

ID

136262

Comment

We would benefit by having more available jobs. Perhaps I didn't explain that part. It would be, basically, a side benefit. Bush would look good and improve his chances of re-election, the state administration would look good and improve their chances of re-election, and we as Mississippians will get some people back into the workforce. We're a low-risk state, if you think about it. It would be tough to try a new plan in, say, California because of the sheer number of people and the incredible startup cost involved. In Mississippi, it would be easier to enact a plan on a smaller budget and with less interference. If it fails, it would also not make as big of a splash as it would in other states. If it succeeds, however, it would be reasonable to assume the plan could be scaled up for the rest of the nation.

Author

BarbaraBlackmon.com Webmaster

Date

2003-10-31T17:48:50-06:00

ID

136263

Comment

Another point is that it's quite possible that Barbour's friends in high places will no longer be in those high places in a year and a couple months. This election is not about being friends with Bush; I suspect that will hurt as least as much as it'll help these days. If people hadn't noticed, things are going so rosy for the administration on any front. As for the Kim Wade show, I tried to listen to it once, and lasted five minutes. With all due respect to Mr. Wade who seems very nice apart from the show, I found nothing redeeming about that show. It's classic screech radio, where facts don't seem to matter one iota. It strikes me that some folks are trying to use that case by Mr. Muhammad to try to make Blackmon look bad. But seldom are both sides of the case mentioned. I can't imagine that anything useful will emerge from the Wade show on the topic: it's classic Bill O'Reilly: if the Blackmon "side" has an opinion, they'll cut him/her on and then make fun of the "liberals." That's why blogging is such a refreshing change to talk radio. Sure, people are still biased but (a) you can get a sense of whether they're literate themselves (and could actually pass all those high-stakes tests they promote for public-school kids) by the way they write and argue and (b) we don't just cut people off because we don't like what they say. We have to work harder to make our points. You can write what you want here (within the decency/libel rules), and have an actual intelligent debate. Talk radio is all about entertainment, and sometimes worse. I just say no -- even though I hear that Mr. Wade has taken shots at me and the JFP a few times. I'm honored; it must mean we're doing something right if talk radio doesn't like us. ;-D

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-31T17:53:34-06:00

ID

136264

Comment

Also, Webbie, I think "business-oriented" is classic understatement. It is one thing to support small and local and state businesses, and it's another to give them big corporations easy ways to pull their jobs out of the state and pay pennies to people overseas to make our junk, or to give them so much corporate welfare that they'll build here so they can use non-union workers. Or to immunize them from lawsuits and ease regulations on them, so that they can do anything they want with little deterrence. That means that both that Mississippians lose jobs and that people in other places get screwed at the same time. That's not my kind of "business-oriented." I have a bit more of a traditional approach to business, and I do believe in business. I believe in actual competition, not corporate welfare or handouts or immunity or anything else. Let them compete on their own merits, and let the market (and their own behavior) determine whether they stay in business. It's time we stop giving huge corporations easy passes, so they can come along and run our smaller businesses (where people actually care about people) out of business. No more free lunch for corporations. And are you saying that it's the role of Mississippians to help make Bush look getter so he'll get re-elected? I think you have very low expectations of us as an electorate, if that's the case. We have a lot more important problems to worry about right here in Mississippi than whether Mr. Bush can figure out his morass.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-31T17:57:14-06:00

ID

136265

Comment

BTW, Webbie, we all know your name from previous postings; why not just use it and let it link to your anti-Blackmon Web site. I realize you're trying to get people there, but the big URL used as your name seems like overkill. Just a thought.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-31T17:58:32-06:00

ID

136266

Comment

Protectionism isn't going to save our workforce or our economy. I fail to see how you can disagree with "corporate welfare" for large, individual businesses but then support the same thing when applied to a larger stage. Certainly Mississippi lost jobs because we quit forcing consumers to choose goods produced here, but we lost those jobs because our workforce wasn't prepared or able to compete in an open marketplace. I feel for the people who are not employed because of overseas competition, but I also think they should have realized the threat was there and done something to stand out in the market, or sought an alternative. Allowing open trade gives us lower-priced products and gives our workforce the ability to focus on things other than artificially supporting high prices for goods. Thereís the competition you asked for. It is not the responsibility of the State or of the businesses to implement unions, which you seem to be encouraging. To be honest, Iíve not seen a lot of things unions have done that I can support. They artificially inflate the cost of labor, and inhibit the ability of businesses to adapt to changing markets. I too donít think that we should be giving massive ìhandoutsî to businesses of any size. Reasonable accommodations, however, might be necessary. We need more jobs in Mississippi. If a break on taxes for a few years or training for workers is all we need to entice them to come, then letís do it. Nissan-style eminent domain and secret agreements, however, should be right out. Like I said before, however, much of the tort ìreformî is overstepping the bounds. In the end, someone harmed plaintiffs who bring lawsuits. I donít think we should limit their ability to recover damages, or remove the ability of our legal system to punish egregious offenders. I think our judiciary will overturn tort ìreformsî gone awry. Iím not saying that the role of Mississippi is to get Bush re-elected. Iím saying thereís an opportunity for him to use us for that purpose, however. I think, given the chance, he will help direct economic development in our state. That is not a bad thing. There are often many different goals and outcomes from the same event. I think weíre at a position now to help him and help ourselves at the same time.

Author

Mark

Date

2003-10-31T18:26:06-06:00

ID

136267

Comment

Mark wrote: "Protectionism isn't going to save our workforce or our economy. I fail to see how you can disagree with "corporate welfare" for large, individual businesses but then support the same thing when applied to a larger stage." Donna's reply: Mark, I didn't say that. You're putting words in my mouth. And what exactly do you mean by "larger stage"? What stage is larger than Microsoft's international holdings, which Barbour was paid $600,000 to lobby for in one year? Or, the tobacco companies' reach? Mark: "I also think they should have realized the threat was there and done something to stand out in the market, or sought an alternative. Allowing open trade gives us lower-priced products and gives our workforce the ability to focus on things other than artificially supporting high prices for goods. Thereís the competition you asked for." Donna: No, it is most certainly not the competition *I* asked for. A healthy business climate is about much more than crappy jobs, cheap junk and high profit margins for corporations. Ask Mississippians. I'm not against any kind of tax incentives or breaks; I am against the massive corporate welfare, hand-outs, immunity and de-regulation that the Bush/Barbour crowd favors for its friend and (former?) clients. Mark: "I think our judiciary will overturn tort 'reforms' gone awry." Donna: I do, too, and that happens every day. There is no need to immunize industry. We must checks and balances. And I'm not against any or all civil-justice regulations. I'm also not against any or all business/insurance regulations. Can Mr. Barbour say the say thing? Mark: "Iím saying thereís an opportunity for him to use us for that purpose, however." Donna: Again, I do not want Mr. Bush using the state for anything. Have you noticed what is happening/has happened to most anything he touches? (And don't point to his business successes in Texas, or I'll have to start pulling out the imminent domain and other breaks that helped him gain his wealth there.) Mr. Bush is no brilliant businessman. Remember when being a business person used to mean something? Like hard work, integrity, caring for employees and people, offering a superior, safe product because, if not, you'd go out of business? Now it too often means hiring a high-priced lobbyist to get well-funded politicians to do your bidding, so you don't have to spend money on things like safety and the workplace.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-31T19:01:45-06:00