Jackson Free Press

Click here to view a petition to recall Gov. Haley Barbour.

The words "Haley Barbour" were anathema to many people at the State Capitol during the governor's brief special session to re-authorize the Department of Human Services after a failed attempt to try to run it himself (and thus do unpopular things, like privatize training schools). Many protesters, including myriad angry AARP members, protested his Medicaid bill that is leaving some 65,000 poor and disabled Mississippians uncertain about their medical futures.

Former Gov. Bill Allain added the fire and brimstone to the protest, repeatedly yelling up at Barbour's third-floor office ."There are no 'welfare queens' here today," Allain said, referring to a common GOP scare tactic used to lure the white vote. In fact, elderly white women are severely affected by the cuts. "This is a moral issue; it is not a political issue. … I've never seen anything come out of the capitol or the other capitol worse than this. I got concerned, I got angry, and then I got mad," Allain bellowed.

He's not the only one. Petitions to recall the governor are circulating, even though the state doesn't have a provision to dump a bad governor, as California does. An AFL-CIO petition says that Barbour "has no understanding, care or compassion for the needs of the majority of citizens in Mississippi."

The petition, posted at jacksonfreepress.com, said Barbour "attained his office through a deceptive campaign of promises and promotions while hiding the true intent of his administration. If the people of Mississippi had known he intended to cut education funds, reduce agencies and their capacities to serve, remove 65,000 of our most vulnerable citizens from Medicaid, attack workers' rights, demand sacrifices of others while enhancing his own office, accept federal funds for his own purposes while foregoing federal dollars for education, the poor, workers, roads and other needs, Haley Barbour would never have been elected Governor of Mississippi."

Barbour did not heed Allain's suggestion to save Medicaid. Instead, the Senate ignored efforts by the House to include Medicaid language, re-authorized the DHS, and hightailed it on back home.

Previous Comments

ID

64164

Comment

Hey, guys, if any of you want to vote in a little unofficial, unscientific poll on whether or not to impeach Barbour, better do it quick. Nothing but "recall" votes for days and suddenly Barbour's boys have found it. :-) I'm getting hits off the Magnolia Reports site and for some reason, I'm suddenly getting pro-Barbour votes. :-) http://www.mississippipolitical.com - in the righthand column at the top of the political headlines. Anyhow, I'm going to take it down and put up another one in a couple of days. I want to let people vote on whether they're upset about medicaid, and if so, who they blame most - Barbour or the legislature (or both equally). I know what *I* think, but I'd like to know what other people think, besides the ones I hang around with (who tend to agree with me on that issue).

Author

C.W.

Date

2004-07-09T19:48:14-06:00

ID

64165

Comment

I just went and voted, C.W., but don't dare ask me how I voted.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-07-09T20:03:21-06:00

ID

64166

Comment

Oh, I wouldn't want to make any wild guesses. :-) Did you read the comments? Somebody *really* hates Barbour. I've left it up, but I keep thinking I need to delete it (because it sounds pretty much like a threat). What do you think? I've even thought about writing Barbour's office and telling them they need to look into it, but then, I may be overreacting. Hit the "Comment" link on the page with the results and it will send you to the comments page.

Author

C.W.

Date

2004-07-09T22:38:25-06:00

ID

64167

Comment

C.W., I'd delete the comment, at least the really ugly part. It goes far beyond being an ad hominem attack. Remember, allowing an open forum does NOT mean you have to allow any crap on your site. And your allowing stuff like that to stay will turn off intelligent readers. That's certaily been our experience here. Just my two cents.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-07-10T15:50:26-06:00

ID

64168

Comment

Thanks for the good advice, Donna. I REALLY hate to delete comments (in the interest of free speech) but that one has made me very uneasy ever since I first saw it. Ha, the whole thing was ugly - if I'd cut out the ugly parts, there would only have been verbs and prepositions left. I don't think I have the option to edit comments, but I didn't try, I just trashed it.

Author

C.W.

Date

2004-07-10T20:31:33-06:00

ID

64169

Comment

No problem, C.W. You did the right thing. It's important to remember that "free speech" does not include threatening or libeling others. Remember, as a "publisher"ówhich you are when you run a site like yoursóyou're responsible for what appears on your site, to some degree or another (if not legally, then always ethically, in my view). That doesn't mean you have to censor actual opinion, although you're perfectly within your right to prohibit name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Frankly, some people are very confused about the difference between opinion and libel, and can make costly mistakes as a result. Straight opinion is given wide lattitude legally--you can say someone is an idiot pretty much, if you want. The problem can come when you start listing the reasons: if they're fact-based, they need to be true. This is true, even for letters to the editor and ads in print editions. So, it's probably OK to say: Schmoe is an idiot. - straight opinion Probably not: Schmoe is an idiot because he lied on his resume. - opinion mixed with potential libel Of course, if you can prove he lied on his resume, then truth is the first defense of libel. But if you can't prove it, be careful--especially if the person is not a public figure and you're messing with their business reputation or livelihood. You shouldn't "publish" it if you haven't seen the evidence. In the case of what was on your site, it certainly came close to a perceived threat, and it was about as tasteless as it can get. So it's not really a factual issue, but you are acting responsibly by deleting it. And you are not violating anyone's free speech. In fact, you can't really do that unless you're a government entity. You can disrespect it, but you can't violate it. The AP stylebook has a pretty good, succinct section on libel in the back. Even though some courts are giving the Web/blogs a bit more latittude, I still apply basic rules of libel to decisions of what I delete or don't delete. I also rely on principles of basic human civility and decorum. As the editor, I am responsible for determining what does and does not violate our user agreement, but people are always free to write and discuss my decisions. Finally, I am not an attorney, so none of this qualifies as legal opinion. It's just a summary of my own policy based on my personal study of libel law and my ethical beliefs. There are good sources of information out there, if you're in doubt.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-07-11T13:10:58-06:00