Jackson Free Press

Very compelling column by E. J. Dionne Jr. in the Washington Post: "Republicans won in 2002, but Bush lost most Democrats forever. Conservative critics of "Bush hatred" like to argue that opposition to the president is a weird psychological affliction. It is nothing of the sort. It is a rational response to getting burned. They are, as a friend once put it, biting the hand that slapped them in the face. No one understood this sense of betrayal better or earlier than Howard Dean. Dean's candidacy took off because many in the Democratic rank and file were furious that Washington Democrats allowed themselves to be taken to the cleaners. Many of Dean's current loyalists had been just as supportive of Bush after Sept. 11 because they, too, felt that doing so was patriotic. So Dean also spoke to their personal sense of grievance."

Previous Comments

ID

136861

Comment

If Bush "hatred" is rational among Democrats at the national level, it's driving them insane at the state and local level. Hence, today's article in the C-L describing a nascent revolt from the national party: "Where do we go from here? That was the cry of many Mississippi Democrats after Republicans made new gains into state officialdom in the Nov. 4 elections. Realizing they are an endangered political species, several state level elected Democratic officials are setting out to hold a summit of top party figures in early 2004 to map a survival strategy for the Mississippi party. . . . [Mississippi Insurance Commissioner George] Dale is openly critical of the trend in the National Democratic Party away from the cultural and moral values of middle America and even goes so far as advocating that the state party "disassociate from the national party until they move to the thinking of the majority." The Democratic Party has lost ground among Mississippiís working and middle classes because it (like the National Democratic Party) thrives on racial balkanization. Democratic candidates and liberal elites fan the flames of racial division by portraying most whites and all Republicans as ìracistî even when Republican candidates spend significant time and resources courting the black vote. While this strategy still works to galvanize the black vote for Democrtic candidates, the blowback has been a drastic loss of support for Democrats from whites who arenít racist and deeply resent the accusation. The money quote from todayís article: "Both the Republican Party, and to a lesser extent, the Democratic Party . . . have failed in the crucial area of reaching across racial lines to unite people of different color on common ground . . . . Until they do, Dale said, "they will keep racial divisions going that have held Mississippi back for so many years.""

Author

Wilson

Date

2004-01-02T09:46:52-06:00

ID

136862

Comment

Welcome to the site, Wilson. Be sure to include links to any articles that you quote here so that we're meeting Fair Use rules. And you correctly only quoted a small piece of the article; others please take note. No full articles reposted here! The column you just quoted was by Bill Minor and it is at: http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0312/28/lminor.html Happy new year, all.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-02T11:01:35-06:00

ID

136863

Comment

Democratic candidates and liberal elites fan the flames of racial division by portraying most whites and all Republicans as ìracistî even when Republican candidates spend significant time and resources courting the black vote. While this strategy still works to galvanize the black vote for Democrtic candidates, the blowback has been a drastic loss of support for Democrats from whites who arenít racist and deeply resent the accusation. I think what's missing in this discussion is the tenor of the campaigns that Republicans have been waging on the state level. Republicans may claim outreach into the black community, but the truth is that they push-poll racial hot-button issues to whites and blacks and they use suggestive, sideways arguments like Haley Barbour's "He was against our flag" bullet point criticism of Musgrove. What is that supposed to mean, exactly? I think you need to at least entertain the idea that anyone's vote can be "galvanized" against Republicans not because they are slandered by their opponents, but because their message or tactics aren't appealing enough to that constituency. I think as the Republicans court more black leadership, they'll better shape their message. And, indeed, I think the Democrats like Dale should take that lesson to heart as well -- the MS Democrats need to have confabs that include younger people of all ethnicities and persuasions and include them in the shaping of their message. [continued]

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2004-01-02T11:54:51-06:00

ID

136864

Comment

The money quote from todayís article: "Both the Republican Party, and to a lesser extent, the Democratic Party . . . have failed in the crucial area of reaching across racial lines to unite people of different color on common ground . . . . Until they do, Dale said, "they will keep racial divisions going that have held Mississippi back for so many years."" First, it's worth noting that your "money quote" takes to task the Republicans more than Democrats. Republicans have further to go, and it's not simply because of the brushes that "liberal elites" use to paint them. That said, I agree with it. I think that it's important for people not to just "reach" across racial lines or "court" a multi-racial vote -- I think it's important to have actual policies that speak to people of different races and backgrounds and understand their perspective and their political needs. What will remain interesting to me is to see if Republicans in Mississippi can master that transition -- and it requires a transition for them from Reagan-era race rhetoric -- into a party that represents the values and issues that are important to blacks in Mississippi. I've seen anecdotal evidence that it can. I think the worst problem the Republican party has, though, is that its message is largely fear-based and, hence, aimed at the middle-class voter. Look at Barbour's campaign objectively and you'll see that a great deal of what Barbour had to say wasn't setting an agenda for a brighter future, but rather painting a word-picture of a future that was troubled without him at the helm. Take, for example, his Web site's page on education: http://www.haleybarbour.com/Education.htm The only actual policy suggestion in the entire platform is "amending" the Charter School Law. That's followed by Barbour's conclusion: Ultimately, our children will suffer negative consequences if they donít get a solid education, so there must be immediate consequences if our schools fail to prepare our children for their future. Barbour offered only one concrete suggestion in that entire page and was taking on a sitting governor with a reasonable track record on education. So, the tactic is to instill fear and uncertainty about the future. It worked, and it's a peg that Republicans on the national level hang their hats on as well. (Think of Max Cleland from Georgia, the Vietnam triple amputee, who was painted as "soft on terror" by Republicans.) Fear as a campaign tool seems to find most of its success with a middle-class consituency (playing to fears that our middle-class "standard of life" will be affected...or that others may get some unfair advantage and take your lifestyle from you), so it may play increasingly with the middle-class black community. But I think that at least some portion of the black community in Mississippi can "galvanize" against that fear-based message just as strongly when the solution behind that suggestion seems to be, to borrow the punchline to an old joke "...we're from the Republican party and we're here to help you." It's that "otherness" that Republicans need to overcome. I'm guessing it'll take a message that's a more inclusive -- and a few fewer "whorehouse" gaffes -- before the bulk of those voters are ready to change sides. But it could happen.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2004-01-02T11:56:11-06:00

ID

136865

Comment

"is a rational response to getting burned. They are, as a friend once put it, biting the hand that slapped them in the face." By that standard, you might as well say ACLU hatred was a rational response because conservatives feel THEY get slapped in the face. "rational hatred" doesn't look so rational after all. All it does is cause hurt feelings, which serves no purpose whatsoever (and no, this is not "effeminate, touchy-feely, ultra-compassionism"... its a real recognition that ad hominem attacks are both logical errors AND inevitably destroy the chance for productive discussions that lead to the optimum solution)

Author

Philip

Date

2004-01-02T23:23:52-06:00

ID

136866

Comment

A couple of random thoughts from me: I don't think it's 'rational hatred.' I think it's a rational questioning of the Bush administration and policies. Personally, I'm tired of being told I'm irrational or unpatriotic or a 'Bush hater' because I have questions about the war in Iraq, current tax policies, and so forth. Both sides demonize the other, and it's ridiculous and stupid, and makes it harder to discern the real issues and to formulate responses to problems. The democratic party in MS seems royally messed up. However, breaking from the national democratic party seems like it would create far more problems than it solves. I've only lived here as an adult for 3 and a half years, but it's genuinely hard for me to tell the difference between many democrats and many republicans. I'm also tired of white republicans complaining that 'blacks vote democratic' when it seems to me that 'whites vote republican' in pretty much the same way. And, I'm also tired of state candidates on both sides pushing buttons on issues that they have no control over, like abortion. It's annoying, and stupid, and takes time and energy away from real debates. I would love to see the level of debate raised on both sides of the fence, at the local, state and national level. Fear based campaigning needs to stop, on both sides, before that can happen.

Author

kate

Date

2004-01-03T16:39:09-06:00

ID

136867

Comment

Philip: I see your point, but I think the author of the piece is reacting to what Republicans and pundits are calling "Bush hatred" and not necessarily saying that hatred is rational. Conservative critics of "Bush hatred" like to argue that opposition to the president is a weird psychological affliction. It is nothing of the sort. I think the point being made is that there is a strong "Anybody But Bush" movement, and that some conservative commentators don't understand it, suggesting that it must be an irrational response. The author of the piece suggests that it's Bush's (and the Congressional Republicans') lack of bipartisanship ("changing the tone" "compassionate conservatism" and all that drivel) that's angering people.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2004-01-03T17:31:36-06:00

ID

136868

Comment

Kate, I understand your point perfectly, and agree with you in most ways (esp about liberals being unpatriotic, black democrats and white republicans, etc.). My real point was the most fanatical and hysterical faction of the anti-Bush crowd calling him "Fascist", "Nazi", etc. - not those who legitimately have questions about the Bush Admin (not that I'm a pro-Bush fanatic). And you are right about the Republicans demonizing Democrats too (as we saw throughout the 90s). Why is the civil discourse so shrill these days? One great article (sorry, it was long ago and I don't remember the link) said it's probably because more and more, We The People are ideological segregating our neighborhoods, and sometimes even whole towns and suburbs. Result: Whole subdivisions are chock full of "Support Our Troops" signs, others were equally monolithically full of ones saying "No War". This by itself is bad enough, but when one how a precinct votes on war tends to be a damn good predictor as to how it will lean on other issues... is it any wonder that each side looks with real distaste toward the other??? (Note to Todd, Donna, and rest of JFP: Keep this in mind as Fondren and nearby areas goes through its renaissance. Y'all could be on to something "new"... ideologically integrated neighborhoods with a coffee shop or juice bar called "The Coffee Forum" or "Coffee and Memes", or something. Wouldn't that make the neighborhood more interesting and (perhaps) civically active? What kind of intellegent discussions could ever happen if 95% of the patrons thought the same way?)

Author

Philip

Date

2004-01-03T17:31:43-06:00

ID

136869

Comment

Todd says, I think the worst problem the Republican party has, though, is that its message is largely fear-based and, hence, aimed at the middle-class voter. Republicans didn't fear-monger in this campaign, but Democrats sure did. I followed the Barbour campaign pretty closely, and read your link to his web site, and I just don't see what you're talking about. You may not agree with his positions on education, or you may not think there's much substance there, but to say that this message is "fear-based" is just too much of a stretch. In my recent campaign for DA, on the other hand, Mayor Johnson ran ads on black radio saying that certain Republicans (including me, presumably) were going to "turn back the clock" on black people. He warned black voters that voting was like driving a car -- "If you want to go forward, but it in "D", but if you want to go backwards, but it in "R". That's blatant fear-mongering. If a white official or candidate were to make a similar argument, we'd also call it race-baiting.

Author

Wilson

Date

2004-01-05T13:50:50-06:00

ID

136870

Comment

Republicans didn't fear-monger in this campaign, but Democrats sure did. And neither party is given to sweeping generalizations, right? ;-) I don't disagree that Democrats used fear-based tactics, but I think it's wrong to suggest that the Republicans didn't. You mentioned your own DA campaign...aside from launching with the assertion that Jackson might be the most dangerous city in America, you have, on your website, a section called "Outrages." It's a page of scary headlines with no context and no discussion. Shouldn't I assume that the page is designed to alarm the voter -- perhaps instill a little fear -- so that he or she is swayed to your candidacy? Is fear an effective political tactic? Sure. Polticians of all persuasions use it. (See this for an example of how fear might play in the 2004 races.) But I think focusing on fear can backfire, too. Now, re: Jackson Democrats, I'm not saying that they don't use any negative tactics -- of course they do. But their message tends to be targeted at working class people more than middle class, so their local-level bullet points tend to be less focused on instilling fear about crime and lawlessness (or a general sense of "people taking something from you they don't deserve") and more about an ambiguous "the other guy isn't looking out for your interests." That may be true, it may be self-serving...or both. I haven't heard the Mayor's radio ad -- one curious thing is that you put quotes around "turn back the clock" but not "on black people." Did Johnson say "on black people" outright, or are you saying he implied it? If he didn't specifically say "on black people" then it sounds like fair game -- most candidates are going to say their party has the answers and the other party is taking you in the wrong direction, right? If he did say it, then I would say it sounds like overt pandering. If a white candidate said outright that he was the candidate for "white people" then we'd certainly think he's ready for his straitjacket. (Actually, we do have those candidates, but they spend most of their time on the side of the highway holding cardboard signs.) Having said that, I think there are issues that affect working-class African-Americans (and, for that matter, working class and middle-income folks of all races) as a community that the Mississippi GOP doesn't do a great job of addressing. Not that Mississippi Dems are much better. And I think it's clear that Mississippi in general remains polarized on race issues. So, in order to cut through that din, particularly in the city, a politician has to take special care with fear-focused pitches. That sort of negative tone hurts a candidate's chances with urban voters (of all races) and opens the candidate to criticism that he or she doesn't represent their point of view. It just dilutes the message, in my opinion.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2004-01-06T01:46:48-06:00

ID

136871

Comment

I'll also point out that the Barbour campaign literature was filled with items designed (I believe) to induce fear. There was the constant refrain of "Jackson is one of the 10 most dangerous cities" and the statement that "people in jackson are afraid to leave their homes." The comment that "more manufacturing jobs have been lost than any time since the Great Depression" (uh, were there manufacturin jobs to lose during the great depression? Anyone notice the national economy? Anyone notice the republican president and congress? anyone notice NAFTA?) And, my all time favorite, "Musgrove wants the change the flag." And yes, the Democrats pull that kind of stuff too - which, I believe, is why so few of us vote, or pay attention, or participate in anyway in the political system. However, I didn't get much campaign literature from the Dems, so no quick examples spring to mind. I swear, I'd vote for just about any candidate at this point that didn't set out to insult my intelligence and make me FEAR the "other side."

Author

kate

Date

2004-01-06T11:10:28-06:00

ID

136872

Comment

"targeted at working class people more than middle class" "working class and middle-income folks of all races" Can you please define these categories in annual incomes? You play pretty loose with the terms to support your point but make no effort to define exactly what levels of income are incorporated within your references. "So, in order to cut through that din, particularly in the city, a politician has to take special care with fear-focused pitches. That sort of negative tone hurts a candidate's chances with urban voters (of all races) and opens the candidate to criticism that he or she doesn't represent their point of view. It just dilutes the message, in my opinion." That is a very curious admonition from someone who hasn't run in any election in these climes to someone who has, and who lost. Seems to me that Mr. Carroll has probably done a heap of contemplation about his loss, the reasons for same and what he could have done from a message and approach standpoint differently.

Author

RanchHuevos

Date

2004-01-06T11:37:38-06:00

ID

136873

Comment

That is a very curious admonition from someone who hasn't run in any election in these climes to someone who has, and who lost. Seems to me that Mr. Carroll has probably done a heap of contemplation about his loss, the reasons for same and what he could have done from a message and approach standpoint differently. Ranch, I don't understand your logic here. Why is a "curious admonition" for any citizen to express an opinion to a candidate (who lost, not that that matters) about why he/she does not believe the candidate took the right approach to get his message to voters?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-06T13:02:07-06:00

ID

136874

Comment

First, I appreciate Rancho's comments. I did work extremely hard to get black votes, without trying to scare people at all. I attended every fish fry and political rally I could find, I attended and spoke in black churches, I went door to door in more black neighborhoods than I can count, I sponsored a big fish fry at the JSU homecoming game, I participated in a candidates' panel discussion at JSU and spoke at a student rally there as well, I sponsored Charles Evers' Wednesday night radio program for six consecutive weeks (I essentially bought six 30-minute spots with listener call-ins) and went on Frank Bluntson's Sunday afternoon talk show multiple times as well. I had more yard signs in the black community than you could shake a stick at, and had a number of black leaders working quietly for me in the background. After all that, it was pretty devastating to receive less than 5% of the black vote. My opponent didn't get much in the way of white vote, either, but I'm not aware that she tried. After trying to run a racially inclusive campaign, and getting pounded by someone who made virtually no effort to reach across racial lines, it's just hard for me to accept the suggestion that I lost because I, or my party, was racist or ran a campaign based on fear. I also find it hard to agree that I lost because blacks didn't agree with my message. Blacks in Jackon get hurt much more by crime than whites. They hate the crime and drugs that are destroying inner city neighborhoods. They hate to see repeat offenders released with a slap on the wrist, although they strongly support alternative sentencing and other methods of rehabilitation. I spoke to all of those things in my campaign, and did everthing I could to assure black voters that I would be fair and accessible. The simple fact is, I ended up battling a well-organized, well-financed political machine that delivered votes for Democrats on election day. Neither my message, nor the way it was delivered, mattered one bit when the vans started rolling. I'll give one anecdote. On election day I had 17 campaign workers standing outside various polling places in West Jackson, and I stopped to buy box lunches for them at the Kentucky Fried Chicken on Bailey Avenue. Curiously, it was closed. When I went into the Church's Chicken next door, and ordered 17 boxes, the clerk told me, "I can't sell it to you." When I asked why, she pointed to another gentleman (one of Mayor Johnson's political operatives) and said, "He just bought 900 boxes." When I saw them loading all that fried chicken into vans and the backs of pickup trucks (at only one store, mind you), I knew I was doomed. With regard to Mayor Johnson's radio ads, they were definitely targeted exclusively to black voters. First, they only ran on WMPR and other primarily "black" stations (another generalization, I know). Second, the Mayor specifically referred to gains "we've" made in the last 10 years, and referred to the threat to "our community" posed by Republicans. Those are pretty clear code words, and I believe constitute racial pandering of a sort which we would never tolerate from white candidates or officials. Unfortunately, this happens a lot in Jackson. Just tune in to "Views from the Black Side" on WMPR any Friday night at 8:00 p.m., hosted by Charles Tisdale. It's quite disheartening to hear so much racially divisive rhetoric, and virtually every statewide and local Democratic candidate appeared on the show. Heck, even I went on a special edition of Mr. Tisdale's show the Sunday before the election. Sure, I put bullet points on my web site listing various "headlines" describing various problems in our criminal justice system. As far as fear-mongering goes, that doesn't come anywhere close to Mayor Johnson's ads telling the entire black community that I was going to "turn back to clock" to the bad old days.

Author

Wilson

Date

2004-01-07T13:11:18-06:00

ID

136875

Comment

Speaking of "fear-mongering" and politics, what does everyone think of Mr. Stokes comments to Ben Allen last night? I've heard Stokes say many silly things but threatening another council member made my jaw hit the floor. They were all acting like bitter, little children! I realize this might not be the right blog but wanted to see what everyone else was thinking....

Author

kaust

Date

2004-01-07T13:50:07-06:00

ID

136876

Comment

"Speaking of "fear-mongering" and politics, what does everyone think of Mr. Stokes comments to Ben Allen last night?" Watch the Council meeting replay tonight and then comment. "Ranch, I don't understand your logic here. Why is a "curious admonition" for any citizen to express an opinion to a candidate (who lost, not that that matters) about why he/she does not believe the candidate took the right approach to get his message to voters?" You don't need to understand the logic because I also was expressing an opinion though the subtlety may have been lost, though I doubt that. The comment I referenced was indicative of a opinion posture that you all present with regularity of a level of local political insight, knowlege and campaign expertise that I do not believe you possess nor have gained during your short stay in Jackson. On one hand you present yourselves as the Publisher and Editor of an alternative and your role as such is to take on the mainstream and status quo. On the other, and when convenient, you are only expressing opinions as 'citizens'. Its great to have it both ways. Your Poster Mayor played some serious late election hardball to influence a Hinds County election, in this case to elect your Poster District Attorney. Some of the techniques he employed were identical to those GOTV efforts of Haley Barbour, for instance, whose campaign you negatively rode for any number of failings all the way to the final vote count, and after. The Mayor played the same power politics you drone on and criticize conservatives, and the GOP at all levels of the spectrum, for playing. Yet your 'alternative' has yet to call any attention to the fastballs Mr. Johnson threw high and tight late in the game on behalf of Ms. Peterson. No one in Jackson realistically expects you to hold the status quo, mainstream elected officials you openly support to the same standards as those you deride. That's pretty obvious. By the same token, you shouldn't be surprised or quizzical when individuals express their opinions challenging your political opinions or acumen either. I still would be interested in understanding the income parameters used to define "working class" versus "middle class" used above. But I also won't hold my breath expecting them to arrive either.

Author

RanchHuevos

Date

2004-01-07T15:49:59-06:00

ID

136877

Comment

Good points, Ranch. BTW, with regard to Donna's claim that I tried to scare people into voting for me by bombarding them with bad data, please be aware that I gave a lengthy interview to Donna during the campaign. During that interview I expressly admitted that we have to be careful about criminal statistics -- just as national rankings can manipulate data, so can the local police department. (For example, Jackson only reported 50 murders to Uniform Crime Statistics, when 58 people were actually shot, stabbed or violently dispatched over the period in question. Apparently, the other eight weren't reported by Chief Moore as "homicides" because the DA didn't indict the suspects. How convenient.) Donna then published a very edited version of the interview in the magazine, and completely omitted my admission that the data might be unreliable. She assured me that she would publish the full transript, but has never done so. She did, of course, publish the full transcript of Ms. Peterson's interview. It's unfair of Donna to (1) fail to publish my comments advising voters to approach criminal data with caution, then (2) blast me repeatedly for trying to scare voters with bad data. I also think it's unfair to repeatedly paraphrase and mischaracterize my statements without posting the full transcript.

Author

Wilson

Date

2004-01-07T16:21:57-06:00

ID

136878

Comment

Ranch writes: "You don't need to understand the logic because I also was expressing an opinion though the subtlety may have been lost, though I doubt that. The comment I referenced was indicative of a opinion posture that you all present with regularity of a level of local political insight, knowlege and campaign expertise that I do not believe you possess nor have gained during your short stay in Jackson. Ranch, if you're saying that one would have to have lived in Jackson their entire lives to express opinions about local political campaign or race politics or media coverage of crime, I have to respectfully disagree. I'd also respectfully point out that much of the "local media," including many corporate reporters, editors and TV reporters, haven't lived in Jackson any, or much, longer than we have. Many of them are not even from Mississippi ... at all. Many (most?) did not go to college in the state, or study political science or Mississippi government here. My point above was that it makes more sense, and is more interesting to readers and those you're trying to convince, to address issues directly rather than accusing the messenger of not living here long enough or whatever. And I assure you that as journalists, we are talking to many, many people every day who have vast knowledge of these issues; that is our job. You don't have to agree, but that doesn't mean any of us do not have asd much right, or "qualifications," as Mr. Carroll or anyone else, to voice our opinions. As this exchange is illustrating, we can waste a lot of time on that kind of accusatory dialogue, rather than actual issues. I agree with you about watching the Council meeting on TV tonight to see for ourselves what happened. I wasn't there, and I don't really understand what happened from the news reports. I'm not really surprised by Stokes' disgusting comment; the man's isn't known for his couth or decorum in Council meetings. And he should be harangued for it. But I'm very, very curious about what's up with Ben Allen accusing Horn of a death threat. That's a serious accusation, and I'm surprised Allen went public with it that way. I'm trying to find out more about that; will keep y'all posted.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-07T17:07:40-06:00

ID

136879

Comment

Now to Wilson's (accusatory) comment: "It's unfair of Donna to (1) fail to publish my comments advising voters to approach criminal data with caution, then (2) blast me repeatedly for trying to scare voters with bad data. I also think it's unfair to repeatedly paraphrase and mischaracterize my statements without posting the full transcript. Now Wilson, it's odd that you're posting this accusation on our Web site, knowing full well that you and had an e-mail exchange about this already. I don't mind that you're posting it, but you're being rather selective about what you're saying. As I told you in e-mail, I did not have time to actually transcribe your entire interview before the election (although I did listen to the whole thing and take notes, and had taken notes as we had spoken), and thus did not post the entire transcript on the Web site by the election. After the election, frankly, I thought it would seem like I was belaboring this particular election by posting it, being that I didn't find many of your statements in the interview very convincing in the first place. I also told you last week that I had also told the mayor that I would post his full interview transcript, and I have not had time to do that, either. In fact, the parts I left out of that one dealt largely with the specifics of what he believes have been his accomplishments to date. I also remind you that after the two interviews with you and Peterson appeared, you complimented me at a Jackson 2000 meeting for the ways they were presented in the paper. I posted Peterson's full transcript on her candidate's page days before the election last fall because, frankly, Jesse Yancy had done the interview and had transcribed it right away, and it seemed unfair not to post it since he had done the work. His interview with her was much shorter than mine was with you. You say I ran a "very edited" interview; yes, length-wise, it was shorter, but I did not go through and change what you said, as what you said here could imply. I'm sorry that you believe I was being unfair, but editors must decisions every day about the best use of our resources. And that was the decision I made. I also told you in e-mail that now that you've requested it, I will go through the tape of the interview with you as soon as I have time and post the entire interview. Being that you're bringing it up, it won't seem like I'm trying to belabor some point, which I also told you in e-mail. I will also post the mayor's full transcript, and probably Peterson's responses directly to me about your allegations in an interview that I personally conducted with her when we were trying to determine our endorsements. (She was the incumbent and, frankly, she wasn't accusing you of anything other than not being qualified to be D.A. Thus, I went down a list of your accusations of her to see how she responded before endorsing her.) But the transcripts won't happen overnight; I am putting out an issue this week and working on several stories (and, frankly, don't have time to do this much blogging). When I post all that, you and others are welcome then to respond back, and get a further dialogue rolling if you'd like. (I will add that no other media around here provides this service of posting entire transcripts. I certainly will stop telling people that I plan to, and then will do it as I have time, so that I don't invite such nefarious accusations as you're making! I guess that's the price I pay for trying to raise the information bar a bit. )

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-07T17:22:47-06:00

ID

136880

Comment

Wilson wrote: BTW, with regard to Donna's claim that I tried to scare people into voting for me by bombarding them with bad data, I assume here you're talking about your, er, liberal use of the Morgan Quitno data to bolster your claim that Jackson might be the most dangerous city in America. What are you challenging here? You certainly didn't say anything in the interview that explained why this made sense to do. You indeed launched your campaign using Morgan Quitno rankings for the year that Peterson took office and only served for six months, which I asked you about way back at your announcement ceremony. You said then your source was Eric Stringfellow's column; I challenged you then to look closer at the numbers and the dates and what they meant. However, you continued using them throughout the campaign in what I indeed would characterize as a "fearmongering" fashion, which did not include any critical analysis of those rankings and certainly no context. Playing so fast and loose with those numbers was a primary reason we did not feel that we could endorse you. (To be fair, Haley Barbour also did the same thing. We didn't endorse him, either.) My Morgan Quitno stories are at these links: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=1894_0_4_0_C http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=2082_0_4_0_C You will recall that you and I also talked in person about how candidates often like to use statistics that seem to hurt their opponents, but then say that statistics are not reliable when those numbers don't support their claims. This practice is rampant in Jackson. That exchange should be in the interview as well unless we talked about it off-tape. I'll post the whole tomato (when I get time).

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-07T17:25:09-06:00

ID

136881

Comment

I'm not "accusing" you of failing to run the transcript, Donna. I'm just stating a simple fact. I think a ran a better, more decent campaign than you're giving me credit for, but I'm at a disadvantage defending myself without the transcript. When I said you ran an "edited" version in the magazine I didn't mean to imply that you changed anything -- you just left some things out which are relevant to your charge that I tried to scare people with bad statistics. I'll completely drop my request for you to post the transcript if you'll just acknowledge that we discussed problems with the criminal data on both sides of the argument, and then ease up on me a bit. The only reason I got into this discussion in the first place is because I felt you were continuing to misrepresent both the tenor and substance of my campaign. Faye already whipped me pretty good -- there's no need for you to pile on :-(

Author

Wilson

Date

2004-01-07T17:45:26-06:00

ID

136882

Comment

Your Poster Mayor played some serious late election hardball to influence a Hinds County election, in this case to elect your Poster District Attorney. Some of the techniques he employed were identical to those GOTV efforts of Haley Barbour, for instance, whose campaign you negatively rode for any number of failings all the way to the final vote count, and after. The Mayor played the same power politics you drone on and criticize conservatives, and the GOP at all levels of the spectrum, for playing. Yet your 'alternative' has yet to call any attention to the fastballs Mr. Johnson threw high and tight late in the game on behalf of Ms. Peterson. So, if this is actually supposed to follow, why haven't you posted here criticizing your "Poster Governor," Haley Barbour? You're doing the same thing you accusing us of doing (with the exception that you do it anonymously). You're just being hypocritical and hyperbolic. I still would be interested in understanding the income parameters used to define "working class" versus "middle class" used above. But I also won't hold my breath expecting them to arrive either. OK, the question is fair, even if you are hyperventilating as you ask it. :-) Start here: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/working+class http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/middle+class The only nuance to that is that I'm using the terms socio-economically -- obviously there can be wage-earners and skilled laborers who make good money and would be "middle class" in terms of income. So my caveat would be that "working class" are people who have covered the basics but have a little discretionary income ("working poor" seems to be too harsh of a term, since not all of them would consider themselves "poor"), while the middle class would be people who have a considerable discretionary income and relatively few day-in/day-out job, transportation or insurance worries. OK? Exhale.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2004-01-07T18:01:45-06:00

ID

136883

Comment

I assume here you're talking about your, er, liberal use of the Morgan Quitno data to bolster your claim that Jackson might be the most dangerous city in America. Donna, why do you say I used the Morgan Quitno data "liberally"? I used it once in my campaign kickoff speech, before I ever heard or read your critique of the analysis (with which I simply disagree). I didn't use is on my puchcards, or in my letters, or in any other speeches that I can recall. I did use the City's own data for a while showing crime was up, and in the latter part of the campaign focused almost exclusively on my 8-point plan. Remind me -- when exactly did I "continue using them throughout the campaign in what I indeed would characterize as a "fearmongering" fashion"?

Author

Wilson

Date

2004-01-07T18:22:41-06:00

ID

136884

Comment

I'm not "accusing" you of failing to run the transcript, Donna. I'm just stating a simple fact. No, but you're directly accusing me of being "unfair," as in (above): "It is unfair of Donna..." That's fine for you to do, but I also get to fill in the holes in your story about the transcript and explain to readers why I do not believe I have been unfair with you. I think a ran a better, more decent campaign than you're giving me credit for, but I'm at a disadvantage defending myself without the transcript. I'm not sure how the transcript is going to help you, at least against the specific problem you talk about with statistics. You said nothing then, nor more recently that I've heard, to explain why you thought it was a good idea to use old statistics for the year that your opponent only was there for half a year as a cornerstone of your campaign. You also have not explained why it was a good idea to run a campaign filled with rhetoric about Jackson maybe being the most dangerous city in America, or of relying on headlines lifted out of context and so on. Perhaps you went into black communities, as you say, and talked to a lot of people in a direct way -- I have no way of knowing; the only time I saw you in West Jackson was riding in your SUV in the Medgar Evers parade -- but your ads and media campaign did not impress us at all. Yes, we found it "fearmongering," and as we said in our endorsement, that type of negative campaign gave us pause about your ability to be an effective district attorney. (We were also concerned with your lack of experience for the job, so the "dangerous" rhetoric wasn't the only decision point.) I also was told by residents of West Jackson that your campaign push-polled about negative associations, as the Barbour campaign was doing. Or was the push-polling on behalf of you done by the GOP? Now, I fully realize that campaigns in Mississippi are run this way, and you were probably getting advice that the way to win the district attorney's seat is to scare people into thinking that the city will be overrun by crime without you in there. We would suggest, though, that there is higher ground on which more voters await. Just because it's long been done that way doesn't mean it's a good idea. I'll completely drop my request for you to post the transcript if you'll just acknowledge that we discussed problems with the criminal data on both sides of the argument, and then ease up on me a bit. No, I definitely will post the entire transcript. I believe it's a really good idea at this point. I'll alert everyone when I do. "Ease up"? I don't understand this request, Wilson. You are a public figure, who ran a very negative campaign about an incumbent that I believe was a textbook example of how a campaign should not be run. LIke it or not, you're now part of political history in Jackson. You make it sound like I write about you every week; whole weeks go by when I don't think of you. ;-D BUT, I did mention your negative/misleading use of those Morgan Quitno numbers when the new ones came out (it was relevant to the news), and we used it as an example in an editorial about how campaigns should not be run. I am not going to promise you that I will not mention it again. If I did, I would not be true to our mission of being a challenging and in-depth media voice in Jackson that looks at history and context whenever possible. I am sorry that this bothers you personally; but I do remind you that I approached you about the tenor of your campaign and your use of those numbers during your *announcement* speech. So this cannot come as a surprise to you that we believe it's an important example. And I remind you that you're bringing it up now on the blog; it's not like I'm signing on every day and saying, "Look what a negative campaign Wilson ran!"

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-07T18:31:46-06:00

ID

136885

Comment

MORE ... All this said, Wilson, we do believe you have good ideas to offer to the community and would encourage you to focus on positive actions moving forward, and not stay focused on the campaign you ran, and what the JFP thinks about it. And I'd respectfully suggest that blaming a black Democratic machine for your loss is shortsighted and a bit of scapegoating. The majority of Jacksonians we talk to, of all races, want something done about crime, want it prevented and don't want it overblown simply for newspaper sales, TV ratings -- or to help someone get elected. I think you should pay closer attention to those sentiments, which are being voiced all over the city from South Jackson to Fondren, West Jackson to Eastover. The loudest, angriest voices are not always the majority. The only reason I got into this discussion in the first place is because I felt you were continuing to misrepresent both the tenor and substance of my campaign. Faye already whipped me pretty good -- there's no need for you to pile on :-( As I've said, I'm not trying to pile on. What I am trying to do is to encourage candidates to run better campaigns in the future. If we just forget about everything that happened in the last campaign until the next one comes up, we'll be stuck in the same old negative sound-bite cycle again. I'd guess that if you'd position yourself as someone who wants to *help* the city fight/prevent crime and make positive suggestions about how to improve the city, without all the blame rhetoric, that you could be a very viable candidate in Jackson, all of Jackson, in the future. That, of course, means acknowledging the city's successes and its weaknesses in terms of resources, as well as being critical. I realize that the habit in Northeast Jackson is that even acknowledging that the current mayor or police chief or D.A. is trying to do something good, or has enjoyed some sort off success, or has not been given fair media coverage, means that you're somehow a traitor to the bash-the-city cause, but I believe that fairness is worth a bit of criticism, especially if it means that we can all unite to work toward what is important, rather than perpetually try to blame and bring one or another official down. And, frankly, the old Cry Wolf problem kicks in; who knows what is real when all we hear is negative criticism? I truly believe that very serious problems could easily hide under all the superficial rhetoric that the media obsess over here. But that's another discussion. BTW, I only say all this to you publicly because you've chosen to have this discussion in public rather than asking to sit down with me for a conversation. I give you credit for the public part, though: more open nitty-gritty discussions such as this, even if we don't agree, can only be good for the city. And I truly believe helping the city is what you have at heart.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-07T18:44:46-06:00

ID

136886

Comment

After all that, it was pretty devastating to receive less than 5% of the black vote. My opponent didn't get much in the way of white vote, either, but I'm not aware that she tried. After trying to run a racially inclusive campaign, and getting pounded by someone who made virtually no effort to reach across racial lines, it's just hard for me to accept the suggestion that I lost because I, or my party, was racist or ran a campaign based on fear. Wilson: First, let me say that I in no way mean to suggest that you didn't work hard on your campaign and that you didn't work to appeal to people all over the county. I know you did. But I do think you've been unfair to me here. You started this thread as a general discussion about how 'Bush hatred' was driving Democrats "insane" on the local level. I responded by speaking generally about the tone of Republican campaigns, which I think are overly negative and focused on fear. You responded by sweeping it all away with a single line "Republicans didn't fear-monger in this campaign, but Democrats sure did." Then you brought up your own campaign. This fear-based approach is happening at the highest level, it happened in the Barbour campaign and I think it overshadowed some of the salient points you wanted to make in your campaign. I don't know if avoiding the fear buttons would have helped you win. And I didn't hear every speech you made, so I'll back away from specifically characterizing your campaign. I know you had positive things to say and that you said them. But what I did hear and read of it had some of that fear-focus in them and I, for one, found that they affected my desire to vote for you. With regard to Mayor Johnson's radio ads, they were definitely targeted exclusively to black voters. First, they only ran on WMPR and other primarily "black" stations (another generalization, I know). Second, the Mayor specifically referred to gains "we've" made in the last 10 years, and referred to the threat to "our community" posed by Republicans. Those are pretty clear code words, and I believe constitute racial pandering of a sort which we would never tolerate from white candidates or officials. I still haven't heard the ad, but the way you're putting it, I have to disagree that it's overt race pandering. But even if it's *covert* pandering (racial or otherwise), which is more likely, I think we tolerate that so of party-line innuendo just fine from white candidates. For instance: "He was against our flag." But regardless of what the Mayor or Democrats did or did not do, it doesn't change my opinion of what I think it would take to overcome that -- optimism. Sure, I put bullet points on my web site listing various "headlines" describing various problems in our criminal justice system. As far as fear-mongering goes, that doesn't come anywhere close to Mayor Johnson's ads telling the entire black community that I was going to "turn back to clock" to the bad old days. Look, I don't want to have a pissing contest over this, but four of your six headlines are about individual shootings in the Jackson Metro. If you say those are about "problems with the criminal justice system" then I all I can say is that I disagree with you on that characterization. But I'm not here to run down your campaign -- as I mentioned, you brought it up in response to my attempt to discuss what I see as a persistent negativity in the campaigns of many Republicans who were once more given to the "sunny optimism." I think getting back to a more optimistic approach (I call it "progressive") might be one way to change some people's minds.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2004-01-07T18:51:38-06:00

ID

136887

Comment

Donna, why do you say I used the Morgan Quitno data "liberally"? I used it once in my campaign kickoff speech, before I ever heard or read your critique of the analysis (with which I simply disagree). I didn't use is on my puchcards, or in my letters, or in any other speeches that I can recall. Wilson, I'll have to look through my files for specifics. I remember seeing the "most dangerous" allegation on your campaign Web site (but I don't know if I printed it out; I might have), and I'm sure I saw you refer to Morgan-Quitno numbers in the Planet Weekly. And wasn't it used in some of your print ads? I'll look for any references I may have in the files, and post them when I post your transcript if you'd like. Of course, how the city's crime data was/is twisted both in campaigns and the corporate media is another discussion, but I don't have time for that one now. You'll note that my analysis of the city's stats have shown both that the corporate media overplayed and that the city underplayed it on occasion. Of course, I realize that means I'm biased toward the city. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-07T18:57:28-06:00

ID

136888

Comment

Fair enough. So let's accentuate the positive. My new favorite Republican, Stephanie Summers-O'Neal, will be wrapping up a big campaign swing through the second congressional district tonight at Hal & Mal's -- 9:00 p.m. It's a very short campaign, and you media types (and any readers whom we haven't run off yet) won't get a lot of chances to bend elbows with the candidates. Be there or be square!

Author

Wilson

Date

2004-01-07T19:04:59-06:00

ID

136889

Comment

Hey, square is cool again ... didn't you know?! ;-) We're counting Best-of ballots tonight (argh), but I'll try to swing through later. Meantime, why don't you tell us a little bit about why she's your "new favorite Republican"; specifics might help get people out.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-07T19:12:55-06:00

ID

136890

Comment

Stephanie is young, dynamic, smart, open-minded and independent. She's a successful entrepreneur with roots in this community going back a long, long time. (The "Summers" owned the Summers Hotel, longtime home of our beloved Subway Lounge. The Georgetown Neighborhood is named after her maternal grandfather, who developed it many years ago). She's showing a lot of courage taking on Bennie Thompson, who is deeply entrenched and will be tough to beat. She also happens to be black -- which means this March will be a watershed in Mississippi history. Two black candidates will compete for the Republican nomination for Congress, which to the best of my knowledge has never before ocurred in Mississippi, maybe even in any other southern state. Don't take my word for it. You've got to meet Stephanie to believe what a great person and candidate she is.

Author

Wilson

Date

2004-01-07T19:33:00-06:00

ID

136891

Comment

"Don't take my word for it. You've got to meet Stephanie to believe what a great person and candidate she is." I look forward to it. What are her specific positions that make her your favorite Republican? That's what I'm most interested in: issues. And willingness to be independent-minded, regardless of party.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-07T19:37:00-06:00

ID

136892

Comment

You wrote: "working class and middle-income folks of all races" You still are not defining the income levels. Which is a common practice of those who want to create divisions for the sake of supporting arguments but have no numerical basis on which to ground the assertion. You were discussing a local election and seemed to have an opinion as to how a message was playing at the 'class' level. What are the income levels that define your interpretation of working class and middle class? Or was this a throw-away comment that you don't have any hard data with which to define? "So, if this is actually supposed to follow, why haven't you posted here criticizing your "Poster Governor," Haley Barbour?" Remind me of what I posted that would lead any consumer of this forum to conclude that Barbour was my 'Poster Governor'? Its clear that you all are going ignore Mr. Johnson's last minute electioneering. That is fine, and expected. "Perhaps you went into black communities, as you say, and talked to a lot of people in a direct way -- I have no way of knowing" Just as we have no way of 'knowing' that you do anything, or speak with anyone, as you posture. I'd venture, and bet money, that more people in Jackson would vouch for Mr. Carroll's veracity prior to signing up for yours. Just my opinion. Doesn't mean he's right and you're not. More likely a measure of community trust, or lack thereof.

Author

RanchHuevos

Date

2004-01-07T19:50:15-06:00

ID

136893

Comment

Its clear that you all are going ignore Mr. Johnson's last minute electioneering. That is fine, and expected. That's a funny thing to say, Ranch, considering that Todd and Wilson are in the process of a dialogue that includes it. I will also note that no one has provided an actual tape or transcript, which would be very interesting. And you can't know from this thread what the JFP is, or is not, going to "ignore" in the future. Sounds like you're just trying to accuse us (about the future!) without anything to back it up. If you want to address the mayor's ads, address them. Tell us what they said and what you thought about them. Talk about the issue. Please. Just as we have no way of 'knowing' that you do anything, or speak with anyone, as you posture. I'd venture, and bet money, that more people in Jackson would vouch for Mr. Carroll's veracity prior to signing up for yours. Just my opinion. Doesn't mean he's right and you're not. More likely a measure of community trust, or lack thereof. Obviously, people have to decide for themselves whom or what to trust. That's what information, attribution and good data are all about. Ranch, you're coming very close to trolling with your last statement there. Please observe our Terms of Service and talk about issues; within that, it's fine to agree or disagree and challenge others' assertions. It is a waste of server space to argue about who is going to vouch for whom's veracity; there is simply no way of knowing. Please stick to the issues in your posts here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-07T19:59:09-06:00

ID

136894

Comment

You were discussing a local election and seemed to have an opinion as to how a message was playing at the 'class' level. What are the income levels that define your interpretation of working class and middle class? Or was this a throw-away comment that you don't have any hard data with which to define? I took your question seriously and answered it:[quote]"So my caveat would be that "working class" are people who have covered the basics but have a little discretionary income ("working poor" seems to be too harsh of a term, since not all of them would consider themselves "poor"), while the middle class would be people who have a considerable discretionary income and relatively few day-in/day-out job, transportation or insurance worries."[/quote] What hard data would suffice? Middle class people are more likely to have TiVo. How's that? I was expressing my opinion -- I think that negative messages that create a sense of "people may come and take something that's rightfully yours" play more with the middle class, as those are people who feel they have something to lose. Rhetorically that sort of fear-baiting is used for everthing from crime to affirmative action to fighting progressive taxation. People of lesser means (working class, working poor, wage-earners) seem to respond more to negative messages that fit more in "the other guy isn't looking out for your interests" mold. If you disagree with that or feel that assigning special dollar amounts to class distinctions is important, then say why. Otherwise your attempt to discredit me by demanding phantom numbers rings a little hollow.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2004-01-07T20:21:00-06:00

ID

136895

Comment

I'm going to wade in here, with a few comments: 1. It seems to me that because the political parties are so strongly divided along racial lines here in MS that it makes it more difficult to have discussions along political party lines, without it devolving into race discussions. My experience in the SF Bay Area (18 years) was vastly different - I learned over and over again to not make assumptions about people based on race, gender, clothing, haircut, marital status, whatever. Here it *sometimes* seems like Democrat = Black and Republican = White. Because of that, I'm happy when there are black republicans and white democrats, just to remind people that it's not, ultimately, about race. It's about issues. 2. So, Wilson, I'm not surprised, that a political newcomer, running against a democratic incumbent in a highly democratic county, running as a republican, lost. It was an uphill battle to start with - race and fear and all of that put aside. 3. Wilson, you mentioned a Democratic machine. It's funny, my (limited) experience is that the Democratic machine in MS is in dire need of a tune up. But, now that i think about it, I guess I'm not that surprised, that at a local level, in Hinds county, it's tough to compete with. 4. There's definitely a highly functional Republican machine in the state, as evidenced by the teenagers who showed up at my door the sunday before the election, urging me to vote for Barbour. The were 'visiting' from Nebraska (or one of those flat, corn riddled states). Plus the 4 phone calls from Barbour between Sunday and Tuesday. 5. The other thing I'm trying to do, personally is to try to fully understand the appeal of the candidates that I find, well, less than appealing. And the way to do that is not to judge them at their worst (Johnson on the 'turn back the clock' quote, Barbour on 'he's against our flag'), but to look at them when they are at their most positive. Todd brought it up a few weeks ago - the notion of 'listening to refute' vs. listening to understand. It's easy to bash politicians of all stripes. It's harder to put yourself in someone else's shoes and look for the positives that they see in their chosen candidate.

Author

kate

Date

2004-01-07T20:32:34-06:00

ID

136896

Comment

One thing that shocked me, Kate, upon returning to Mississippi was learning how often white Mississippians use the word "Democrat" as a disparaging word for African-Americans. I had a man tell me that "Democrats are thinking about moving into the building." "Democrats?" I naively asked him. How do you know they're Democrats? He looked at me with shock that I didn't know what he meant. "You know, blacks," he whispered. I couldn't believe my ears. But I've heard this done many times since then. It seems that the word "Democrat" has replaced the word "Communist" and worse words that I won't repeat here as a disparaging label of choice for many whites. And that's just tragic. (I've learned to recognize it now right away because the word "Democrats" is usually whispered when used in this way. ) On a related note, following is an excerpt from the Washington Post piece Todd linked way above about the "Culture of Fear" in America. It seems fitting to quote it after all the discussion above: Barry Glassner, in his 1999 book "The Culture of Fear," makes the same point on an even wider scale. He sees fear as a pathology sweeping America, overburdening citizens with anxieties about the wrong things, a profound emotion which has been manipulated by politicians and the media. Glassner says Americans are unrealistically afraid of violent crime, drugs, minorities, monster moms, mutant microbes, plane crashes, et al, and blames the media for hyping these issues for their emotional impact. SARS is the latest example of this phenomenon. It's time our public officials be taken to task for their use of fear as a way to justify their policies and, even worse, as a way to get votes. Lyndon Johnson's "Daisy Ad" was widely panned in 1964, but this year's crop of candidates are shameless about using the public panic after 9-11 and the anthrax episodes as a way to seize the limelight. The responsible way to deal with an insecure and fearful citizenry is to examine the rational basis for those fears. Solutions from duct tape to billions more in tax dollars for public safety and the military need to be evaluated through a public dialogue on how realistic those fears are in the first place and whether we may just have to learn to accept a certain level of risk. In 1933 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt told Americans that the "only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Perhaps we should add this book to the BookBlog.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-08T12:42:01-06:00

ID

136897

Comment

What's a monster mom (squeezed in there between minorities and mutant microbes)? Is it the monster from Alien? Or some mutant version of a Soccer mom? Or.

Author

kate

Date

2004-01-08T12:59:59-06:00

ID

136898

Comment

Wilson: Don't take my word for it. You've got to meet Stephanie to believe what a great person and candidate she is. Donna: I look forward to it. What are her specific positions that make her your favorite Republican? That's what I'm most interested in: issues. And willingness to be independent-minded, regardless of party. Wilson-- as someone who resides in the 2nd district, Donna has a good question here. I'd also like to know what experience/background does Summers-O'Neal have?

Author

Ex

Date

2004-01-20T01:32:21-06:00

ID

136899

Comment

I just noticed that Wilson never answered Ex's question, either. Wilson, can you tell us specific reasons why 2nd district residents should support Summers-O'Neal? We really are curious.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-23T13:58:34-06:00

ID

136900

Comment

I have taken a look at all three of the candidates running for Congress in the Second District. Interesting findings: Based upon the sites that promote Broadwater, it looks like he may very well be nothing more than a racist guised in the cloth of a minister (www.cofcc.org/missccc.htm). If you check the FEC's site, it also looks like he ran for President while living in Louisiana in 2000 -- a race against President Bush. Summers-O'Neal will have a difficult time defeating Thompson. I'm not sure what she brings to the table besides money to try to buy the seat -- she's already put in over $30,000 of her own money. I think I'm sticking with LeSueur, as he works very hard and yet still seems to be raising the most money, appearing at the most events, and running the best race -- as he is actually talking about issues, not just saying "elect me, I'm a black woman" or "elect me, I'm a minister". Sometimes I think people forget that if LeSueur hadn't run so hard in 2002, folks like Broadwater and Summers-O'Neal wouldn't even be thinking about this seat right now. Not only is LeSueur the best candidate, but he's earned it.

Author

Good GOP Guy

Date

2004-03-04T23:05:30-06:00

ID

136901

Comment

I agree with you, GOP Guy, that LeSueur has worked very hard for the exposure he's gotten. I personally don't believe he would be the best representative for the interests of that district, but he is a very impressive man and candidate who pounds the pavement and shakes hands. From what I hear, he is a very sincere, and I admire that in anyone, even if I don't agree with their take on specific issues. I still wish Wilson Carroll had told us his specific reasons for supporting Summers-O'Neal beyond his thinking she would have a good chance to beat Bennie Thompson, which seemed to be his top concern from the postings above. Unfortunately, the primaries rather snuck up on us, and we didn't have time to profile the various candidates. I do regret that, but now that we have a beefier reporting staff, we'll be ready in the future.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-03-05T12:10:29-06:00

ID

136902

Comment

LeSueur was out and about this morning at Broad Street, shaking hands and being filmed by channel 16. I'm not sure how many of his actual constituents were there, but it was indeed a good effort. However, I WON'T be voting for him, because his flier says he's a 'conservative christian' and endorsed by the NRA, and pro-life, and wants to 'promote family values.' But, I do appreciate him going out and pounding the pavement, and reminding us all that there is an election next week.

Author

kate

Date

2004-03-05T12:39:49-06:00