Jackson Free Press

Clarion-Ledger Executive Editor Ronnie Agnew blames Gary Anderson's race in large part for his loss to Mike Chaney. Thoughts?

There's another element to this outcome that cannot be ignored. It is uncomfortable and will be dismissed by those who will accuse me of looking for excuses, of playing the race card. So be it. It must be said.

Gary is an African-American man, who has run unsuccessfully in races against two good men who happen to be white. He worked his way through the political system. He learned political strategies. His own polls told him voters favored him after toughing it out against incumbent George Dale in the Democratic primary.

WON'T MARK X

Yet he lost, and now must realistically wonder if he should abandon public service thoughts and continue working in the private sector. Did he run a perfect campaign? No. Neither did Barbara Blackmon in her 2003 bid for lieutenant governor. Can political pundits find gaps in his campaign strategy? Yes. They can and they will, and most will center on accepting money from mega-rich trial attorney Dickie Scruggs.

None of the so-called answers wash. As difficult as it is to say this, results show that some non-minorities just aren't willing to fill in the "X" next to a minority candidate's name. Gary won all the counties one would expect him to win, mostly in the Delta, but lost the ones he needed the most - DeSoto, Harrison, Hancock, Lafayette, Rankin and Madison.

It bears repeating: Mississippi, with a black population of nearly 40 percent, has never elected a person of color to statewide office. Never.

That a guy with Gary Anderson credentials can't win is inexplicable and discouraging. It gives the impression that minorities need not apply.

Previous Comments

ID

115647

Comment

Allow me to play devil's advocate here. As much as I agree that Gary Anderson's race is a handicap for him (and certainly helped cost him the treasurer's race four years ago), it is a disservice and insulting to him to overly focus on his race in this election. I mean, look at the logic: There was exactly one Democrat elected to statewide office, and in a year when state Democrats played really stupid politics that probably turned off as many voters as they inspired, thus causing a lot of them to stay home. Many of the voters that candidates are ignoring (not to mention Agnew's institutionally racist newspaper) are African American. The only statewide Democrat to win was the one who played Politics of the Stupid the least. Agnew's column is not probing or thoughtful, to say the least. What I'd much rather see from him is a nazel-gazing column about what both parties, and his newspaper as a media leader, should be doing to get more people out to vote and to get away from the horse-race reporting that both lends itself to ugly mudslinging and keeps the real issues from getting out there, and especially to voters who are disgusted by the whole thing. Playing the race excuse card in this instance feels cheap. In other words, I call for The Clarion-Ledger to start being part of the solution instead of blaming everything in site, including the race card, for the problems they help create. Of course, that would require moments of deep thought, and that goes against the corporate creed. But, still.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-11T11:06:47-06:00

ID

115648

Comment

i agree with Ronnie.

Author

NewJackson

Date

2007-11-11T11:16:30-06:00

ID

115649

Comment

Why, NewJack? Do you think Anderson's race was the only factor that defeated him in a year when Republicans walloped Repubs of all races? If so, what do you think indicates that? And I wouldn't mind seeing this conversation turn to what needs to happen to more African Americans to vote. This state would shift dramatically if so. We have the potential to be one of the most progressive states in the country if our large black population would turn out. We could boot corporate Republicans and the new Dixiecrats and wink-wink racists and xenophobes. We could help stop the brain (and ideological) drain. Republicans know this. Why do you think they're so bent on voter ID? Because, right or wrongk, they believe it will limit the number of people who might vote. And you should always worry about a politician who is trying to limit the number of people who can vote. Not to mention realize that they may know something that you don't. Finally, and this is merely a personal belief, I believe the national GOP dispatched Barbour here to insure that this state doesn't swing to the Dem side, which it could easier than some others based on our demographics if people would vote. That's part of the reason I get so frustrated at watching state Dems play right into that strategy by acting like fake Repubs. They are thus helping keep progressives out of the voting booth (not to mention helping run them off), and that is shortsighted. Tort reform's ultimate goal was to keep campaign dollars away from Democrats. Andd that has worked as well. Read our cover package this week.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-11T11:26:02-06:00

ID

115650

Comment

I guess Ronnie missed all the posts where the [then] wavering Meltonites were anointing Gary Anderson as 'their' next choice for Jackson's mayor when it looked extremely bleak after the Ridgeway incident.

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-11-11T15:28:43-06:00

ID

115651

Comment

I think race was and is an issue in this state. In politics, religion and everywhere in between. To think differently is a disservice to those that are trying and working really hard to rid the state of such. While I think Ronnie's coulmn is well written and straight to the point, I think it is long overdue. We need to have these conversations today and tomorrow. If race isn't/wasn't an issue, then why was Gary not running for re-election as state treasurer? Same thing applies to this insurance race...history has a way of repeating itself. I'm not saying that this was the only factor that contributed to Gary's loss, but it is an important one. His campaign was not organized and much to my dismay, he too played into the theory that "white is right." I saw very few if any African Americans working on his staff and out front. Looking at his commericals on TV, Debra his wife was the only other black face that I saw. When I went to his pressors..no blacks leading..he too thought he had to play up the white people to get votes... Be that as it may, race is an issue..blacks tend to overwhelmingly flock to the democratic party without hesitation or representation. The Democratic Party is disportionately led by white males....a shame at best! So, I agree with Ronnie's peice in the C-L...however, the follow up should be where do we go from here? He mentioned Barbara Blackmon in his piece....I don't think she would have won, even if she had not made the public outcry for Amy Tuck's personal admission about having an abortion. This state has not shown itself to be ready to elect an African American to a statewide office. I'm cautiously optimistic that I will witness that in my lifetime. And discussing the need to turn out more African American voters is a separate issue all together..while important it has no place here. To me that is way to much of the same as to what people did when Don Imus made a fool of himself in public. People wanted to talk about the rappers and hold them accountable for there words/actions. While they should be held accountable and it is an issue..it had no place in the discussions of the Don Imus' of the world....Totally different!!!!!

Author

blkokc

Date

2007-11-11T17:39:38-06:00

ID

115652

Comment

I guess Ronnie missed all the posts where the [then] wavering Meltonites were anointing Gary Anderson as 'their' next choice for Jackson's mayor when it looked extremely bleak after the Ridgeway incident. I missed those posts myself, but I certainly think mayor of Jackson is a job Gary Anderson should be thinking about. On the main point raised by Donna, I think it is undeniable that race played a major issue in Anderson's loss. Jim Hood won, in part, because he ran as a consumer advocate for a post that the public associates with consumer advocacy. From what I saw, Anderson did the same. I think it's a real shame that he lost.

Author

GenShermansGhost

Date

2007-11-11T19:38:10-06:00

ID

115653

Comment

I am waiting on the precinct-by-precinct data before I make a definitive comment on this. However, I seriously doubt that race was the sole deciding factor. As the "conservative" Democrats cycle out of office the state is catching up to the rest of the nation as a true two-party state. As such, more and more races will be decided on party affiliation alone.

Author

Willezurmacht

Date

2007-11-11T20:48:24-06:00

ID

115654

Comment

From 'Jackson's Next Mayor' (JFP): Former State Fiscal Officer Gary Anderson said local businesspeople have approached him for a possible run for the mayor’s seat. Anderson lost a close election for state treasurer in 2003 against 29-year-old Republican Tate Reeves. Since that time, he has worked as a lobbyist and consultant. “I’ve heard from a number of people in the business community because they’re concerned about the direction the city of Jackson is heading. The calls I got are people looking for stability and somebody who knows some things about economic development, but we haven’t made any decisions yet. I’m not trying to prejudge the situation, but we’ll continue to follow it,” Anderson said. That's from the article... the posts follow... I'm not convinced he'd make a good mayor. He's lost twice, you can't say he has truly taken on anything like running a City, and he will backed by the same money that supported Melton, especially if it is against the 'usual three' that are mentioned as running. But, don't be surprised if he runs...

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-11-11T21:08:20-06:00

ID

115655

Comment

yeah, I'm not too sure about that mayor's thing....soon it will appear that he is running just to be running. I really had hoped he would run for treasurer again, so that this state could right a wrong from 2003. I'm a bit turned off by people who just run for any office just for the sake of running. I need to see committment!!!! Having said that...Tuesday (election day) proved to be fruitful for Don Palmer and Jerry Moore. Both of these gentelmen ran unsuccessfully in 2003 for the seats that they won on Tuesday...Gary could take a page from there books. On Donna's point about the Republicans.....they really almost did a clean sweep....I think in part because of money and most of them really addressed issues this time around. The top man on the "dem" ticket was more concerned about prayer in school vs economic development, healthcare or the other vast interests that face Mississippians on a daily bases. Political pandering is a thing of the PAST!!!!

Author

blkokc

Date

2007-11-11T21:32:38-06:00

ID

115656

Comment

I don't think if Anderson ran for mayor that he would be in danger of being seen as a perennial candidate. In fact, I think he would be a very strong contender at the local level given his campaign experience, name recognition and credentials. If he were to lose, however, he should definitely abandon any future runs for elected office since it would be clear that something about him doesn't resonate with voters.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2007-11-12T07:29:26-06:00

ID

115657

Comment

jeff, why then with those credientials as you say: name recognition, campaign experience...has it not happened for him on a statewide level? Keeping in mind this state has a near 40% African American populas. Are you saying then that because Jackson is roughly 73% African American that he could win? Does that not speak to the issue of race having had an adverse affect on his bid for Insurance Commissioner?

Author

blkokc

Date

2007-11-12T08:21:59-06:00

ID

115658

Comment

I simply thought it was because either no one likes Mr Scruggs or Chaney was thought to be the better candidate by a majority. Of course, Agnew playing the race card will immediately quash any real debate over how he lost and divert all discussion into yet another chapter of "why we suck", led by the Clarion Liar.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2007-11-12T08:54:32-06:00

ID

115659

Comment

Blackokc, in the Treasurer's race of 2003, I believe race and racism played a huge role as Tate Reeves was then a young political neophyte and Gary Anderson was clearly more qualified given his financial management experience in state government. Sure, one can argue that Republicans supported their own, but if that always holds true how does Jim Hood enjoys so much crossover success? I would conclude that a percentage of white Republicans will not under any circumstance vote for a black at the statewide level, especially a black Democrat, and that dynamic is working against Anderson as much as the growing popularity of the Republican party in Mississippi. I think the same racial dynamic was present in this race, since George Dale previously enjoyed plenty of Republican crossover support for years. Only when he is booted out for a black Democrat that suddenly party affiliation and party loyalty mattered to the Republicans. As far as Anderson for Jackson mayor, yeah he has a better shot because lets keep it real…it will be a race between Melton (if he dares to run) and a black Democrat and the election will be decided in the Democratic primary, so while one candidate might enjoy financial support from the NEJ/Belhaven white establishment, Anderson won’t have to contend with the racial and ideological bias that is keeping him and other blacks from being elected statewide, and he will be judged on his financial experience (very much needed) and his effectiveness in connecting with Jackson voters. That doesn't mean he will win; that depends on who else throws their hat in the ring.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2007-11-12T08:58:39-06:00

ID

115660

Comment

I planned to vote for Anderson. Actually, the day of the election, I thought I'd blow off the whole thing but I was in my car when an ad for John Arthur Eaves came on and I headed to the polls to vote for Barbour just to register my hatred for Eaves' skeazeball campaign (by the way, a bunch of Eaves' campaign people were persons who had worked for the Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi for whatever that's worth). As I got to the insurance commissioner's race, I hesitated. The idea that Scruggs was funding Anderson's campaign made me stop and I ended up not voting in that race or the race for Lt. Gov. for that matter.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2007-11-12T09:44:25-06:00

ID

115661

Comment

jeff, I agree with you. very well stated...I for one am glad we are having these discussions in so many different forums..it is long over due. I think by acknowledging that race was a factor is a great step in the right direction. Again as you and others have stated..not the only factor. Again, great post! Iron..this discussion is needed and I am glad that the C-L is leading the charge. Not as a means to blame everything on race but in an effort to open up some real honest dialogue. I say its about time!

Author

blkokc

Date

2007-11-12T10:41:42-06:00

ID

115662

Comment

I think we're reading a lot more into Ronnie's column than needs to be. Yes, race played a factor in Anderson's loss. Hell, this is STILL Mississippi folks. As I stated opn another thread. the rest of the state is not as "progressive" as us folks in Jackson. Some of their ideals still hold the same and when faced with either a black or white candidate they will vote for the white one. Hell, so will some black folks. Now putting that to the side. Anderson also lost because of the piss poor campaigns run by state democrats this year. He got caught up iin the party's inability to sway voters with their fake republican routine. Voters were too smart for that. He was a victim of party politics. Even moreso than him being black. But thirdly and most importantly. ronnie Agnew is one of the "whitest" Black guys around lol. He's frowned upon playing the race card in other editorials before. Check up on it. Hes more CLARENCE thomas then ISIAH thomas and is only using it in this instance becuause Anderson is an old college fraternity brother. Just read the first paragraph. Its just a personal thing with him. If anderson wasnt a friend he wouldnt have cared one way or the other. IMO

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-11-12T10:43:03-06:00

ID

115663

Comment

Kamikaze wrote: "Now putting that to the side. Anderson also lost because of the piss poor campaigns run by state democrats this year. He got caught up iin the party's inability to sway voters with their fake republican routine. Voters were too smart for that. He was a victim of party politics. Even moreso than him being black." Kamikaze is on the right track. Let's enumerate the hurdles the Democratic Executive Committee put up for him. 1. Ike Brown is still one of the driving forces in the State Executive Committee even after being barred from activity in Noxubee County. 2. The move to close the Democratic Primaries to all but "yellow dog" Democrats is discouraging voters who think for themselves. 3. The shenanigans used to try to exclude George Dale from the Democratic Primary were perceived as leading to his defeat by Anderson and created resentment among many Dale supporters. Now all these things effect voter's perception of the Democratic Party of Mississippi. And perception trumps reality in politics. Gary Anderson pulled more votes than all Democratic candidates except Hood and Sumrall. That strongly suggests a lot of white voters cast their votes for him. Instead of blaming white voters for his defeat, the party needs to be trying to build on the tactics of Jim Hood (who topped all candidates) and the showing of Democrats in the Senate and the House. The Democratic base is still strong in Mississippi. The Party leaders just doesn't know how to energize it.

Author

bluejoe

Date

2007-11-12T12:25:01-06:00

ID

115664

Comment

Good chatter. I would like to stipulate that race is a factor in just about every election we have in this state (and country), but that is no surprise coming from me, I suppose. That said, only blaming race for Anderson's loss would block the other conversations that need to be had about the Democrats in Mississippi. And it looks like those are happening, here at least. Carry on. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-12T12:35:53-06:00

ID

115665

Comment

I didn't vote against Gary Anderson because he was black. I could care less what color he is. I voted the other way because he's a democrat. That's what's really in play here. Do you have some racist in this state that wouldn't vote for someone who's black? Sure. But, that's not why Gary lost. When I think of the Mississippi Democratic party, I think of John Arthur Eaves baptizing people in the Ross Barnett Reservoir (I know, I stole that from a letter to the editor in the Clarion. I couldn't help it though). I think of Geoge Dale being railroaded out of a party that he served in honorably. I think of Ike Brown and voter fraud. Look deep, real deep, and you'll see why Gary lost.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-12T13:15:21-06:00

ID

115666

Comment

why is so many people opposed to religion, Y'all gone run from one extreme to the next and the republicans is gone play to that. I say to everyone What has HALEY done for JACKSON. SH!T. case closed. its a shame that he overlooks us and wish to hold his victory party in Jackson what a FAT hypocrite.

Author

NewJackson

Date

2007-11-12T14:26:40-06:00

ID

115667

Comment

NewJackson, there's this thing called the First Amendment. Some of us, myself included, think it is very important.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2007-11-12T15:09:31-06:00

ID

115668

Comment

What I see isn't! What I know ain't! But I don't think about the things I don't think about. Sometimes I don't even think about the things I do think about. Therefore, I give up - becuase nothing is nothing.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-12T15:13:35-06:00

ID

115669

Comment

I'm certainly not opposed to religion, but it seemed to me that Eaves' campaign put too much emphasis on that aspect of his candidacy. He didn't take near enough time to explain WHAT he was going to do about "Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and Big Insurance." So a lot of his religious campaigning came across as insincere. One other problem: in this day and age, even in Mississippi, a candidate forcefully expressing his or her particular religious view has to be sure that he or she respects and is open to other religious or ethical points of view: Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and existentialist/non-religious. Otherwise, the folks who don't share his or her faith become concerned that they will be excluded from the candidate's administration.

Author

GenShermansGhost

Date

2007-11-12T15:18:22-06:00

ID

115670

Comment

Yeah GSG, all he said was he'd "Throw the money changers out of the temple..." All this talk coming from a rich trial lawyer. What temple WAS he talking about? His"campaign" was the funniest sh!t I've seen in a long, long time. The clip from WLBT's Bert Case with him showing off his hunting rifles on the side of the road had me laughing my a$$ off. He insisted that he should have recieved the NRA endorsement, because of the me too road-side charade, I guess. He and Jesus sure have gotten to know each other quite well in the last 3 months, or so. Hey John Arthur. George Carlin wants to know..."When Will Jesus Bring The Prok Chops?"

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-12T16:05:44-06:00

ID

115671

Comment

Did Haley take the time to say what he was going to do for the capital city. Eaves wasn't going to force religion down people's throats it was just political. I see passion in his eyes and voice. When will Mississippi become a progressive state for every citizen not just the wealthy and powerful.

Author

NewJackson

Date

2007-11-12T16:08:43-06:00

ID

115672

Comment

Cliff's stuck on republicans and the NRA, the Dems ain't going to take your gun collection cliff.

Author

NewJackson

Date

2007-11-12T16:11:29-06:00

ID

115673

Comment

Earth to NewJackson: Eaves is rich and powerful.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2007-11-12T16:12:46-06:00

ID

115674

Comment

When will Mississippi become a progressive state for every citizen not just the wealthy and powerful. Like Eaves?

Author

Puck

Date

2007-11-12T16:14:48-06:00

ID

115675

Comment

NewJackson, you are right.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-12T16:17:01-06:00

ID

115676

Comment

I would like to make an observation that some folks will react to the wrong way. I am not trying to stir emotions or agitate folks. I would just like to kind of run a poll about something that I think had more effect on us than the MSM will tell us. I am sure most of you followed the developments of the episode that came to be called Jena 6. Shortly after the major play that TV and newspapers made of the event. Lousiana elected a Republican Governor--in the first primary against 11 opponents. I could not find any article that suggested a connection between Jena 6 and his election. We have just had a historic election in Mississippi where the Republicans made and unprecedented showing. I have found no article suggesting a connection between Jena 6 and the whupping they gave the Democrats. I think there is a connection in both events. I am curious if others agree or not.

Author

bluejoe

Date

2007-11-12T16:36:31-06:00

ID

115677

Comment

No, I do not think that the Jena 6 controversy had anything to do with the elections in Louisiana and Mississippi. I do think that Hurricane Katrina did.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2007-11-12T16:47:58-06:00

ID

115678

Comment

Barbour was not very popular before Katrina. In fact, pre-Katrina, he had one of the lowest approval numbers among the 50 governors across the country. There was no way Blanco would hold on to her seat in Louisiana. Good thing she didn't run again.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2007-11-12T16:55:23-06:00

ID

115679

Comment

cliff i already saw your web site i know you proud.

Author

NewJackson

Date

2007-11-12T17:45:37-06:00

ID

115680

Comment

One other problem: in this day and age, even in Mississippi, a candidate forcefully expressing his or her particular religious view has to be sure that he or she respects and is open to other religious or ethical points of view: Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and existentialist/non-religious. Otherwise, the folks who don't share his or her faith become concerned that they will be excluded from the candidate's administration." - GenShermGhost You put it well, GSG. I agree totally. Christians who feel they are "violated" by a push for inclusion haven't a clue of what they are taking for granted. The right to worship or not without the state delving into your beeswax.

Author

Izzy

Date

2007-11-12T19:56:17-06:00

ID

115681

Comment

Cliff it's a good thing you're not keeping the score too on the republican party. You likely would get carpal tunnel syndrome. He, he. I just finished reading about a case in Detroit Michigan in 1925 where a white mob tried to run a black doctor and his family from his duly purchased home in an all white neighborhood. One of 11 defendants present at the house shot into the crowd injuring and killing one white person alike. At the trial by Clarence Darrow about 70 white showed up as witnesses and lied about racism, their intentions to run off the owners and inhabitants, and the fact that they were attacking the house when and before the shooting occurred. They refused to acquit after 48 hours or so of deliberating in the first trial that ended with a hung jury. Many of these witnesses were police officers too there to supposedly provide protection, but they lied too nevertheless. This is why I'm so sure no one will lie now. If racism doesn't exist at all, or is incalculatable then it couldn't have costed Gary any or many votes. Agnew and Gary can go to hell, right? I note that Gary never claims racism. I wonder where the fellow was educated? By the way, Darrow got smarter the second time and severed the cases forcing the district attorney to have 11 trials which resulted in the district attorney dropping all cases but one. After Darrow did a 6 to 7 hours closing argument with the undisputed truth, he got an acquittal with an all white jury comprising many immigrants from eastern Europe and many other places. No matter the facts and his brillance, he would have lost down south for sure because we don't have any admitted racism.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-13T13:31:48-06:00

ID

115682

Comment

I think race is a factor no matter what in Mississippi, I mean wasn't there a black Republican guy that ran a few years ago and lost while the other Republicans won? I think time is going to be the factor here, eventually it will happen, hopefully the state Republicans can get some black guys elected which would be both a boon to them and helpful for reconcilation.

Author

GLewis

Date

2007-11-13T13:45:23-06:00

ID

115683

Comment

When 7 Democrats lost to Republicans and only one of them was black, I find it hard to say the black lost because of his color. Political philosophy was apparently the dominant factor. Now, of course, it is possible the white candidates lost because the Democrats are a predominately black party. But even that is difficult to separate from the political philosophy. I do know there is one factor that does not seem to be generally recognized. To say that some one or some group is racist when they do not accept that characterization, is similar to saying a black person is a n*****. My point is that when the terms racism and racist are used in cases were they do not apply, there will be an adverse reaction. Along the same line, my white friends who vote Republican in national elections get upset when I tell them they are Republicans. They tell me they were born and raised as Democrats but believe they have the right to vote for whom they consider the best man. It is a confused world we live in. The task at hand for the Democratic Party is to determine how to keep those folks who have Democratic tendencies in the Party instead of throwing them into the Republican Party.

Author

bluejoe

Date

2007-11-13T14:19:52-06:00

ID

115684

Comment

I don't intend to spend much time on this. I'm merely unwilling to discount race as a major factor because I'm not dumb enough to ignore history. After all, we have a history and records for a reason. I said on another thread that race, party and money were the reasons he lost. Not merely just the lack of money ( he had that problem too), but money given to get people to switch affiliations too. I'm yet to meet any racists nowadays who will admit to it, but I know they exist. I mean, those who will admit to it boldly. The failure of acceptance of racism is not considered a lack of racism for me. A person waiting on acceptance or admission of racism better have a life span of a couple thousand of years and a promise from God acceptance is coming. Even racist want and need self-esteem, love, prestige and to be accepted by at least some people. The mass media, churches, schools, parents, et al, have done a spectacular job of making sure white people have a collective good self image and self-esteem no matter what their deeds are or have been. While this is so clearly the truth some people will still deny it. I don't expect any admissions. I simply watch what people do then make my decisions cautiosly concerning them and the presence or lack of racism. I don't do it blindly though, and certainly not contrary to acts and facts. Else I'd be a phony. No one deserves to be wrongly labeled something they aren't. I'm all for people voting for the person they choose. It's as easy as voting democrat or republicans. This is why the straight ticket argument never sways or overwhelms me from looking beyond this claim.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-13T14:46:45-06:00

ID

115685

Comment

Ray wrote: "I don't expect any admissions. I simply watch what people do then make my decisions cautiosly concerning them and the presence or lack of racism. I don't do it blindly though, and certainly not contrary to acts and facts. Else I'd be a phony. No one deserves to be wrongly labeled something they aren't." I am with you 100%, no if 's, and's, or but's.

Author

bluejoe

Date

2007-11-13T15:19:12-06:00

ID

115686

Comment

My dream contest for '08 would be Dr. Condoleezza Rice -vs- Hillary for president. Mississippi would overwhelmingly vote for Dr. Rice. If Gary isn't playing the race card, then he's smarter than Agnew.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-13T16:07:51-06:00

ID

115687

Comment

I accept Donna's proposed stipulation: that race is a factor in just about every election we have in this state (and country). As sad as that premise is, I believe it to be true. Unlike Agnew, though, I don't believe that race is the sole -- or even main -- factor in Anderson's defeat. Unlike the Treasurer election 4 years ago, Anderson's opponent was not just white and Republican. Chaney had his own record to run on and Anderson had a skeleton named Scruggs in his closet who was never dealt with. 1. Just as there are those who vote race without any further thought, there are those that vote party affiliation without any further thought. The Republican stranglehold on this state must be considered. 2. Chaney ran a better campaign. Not sure if Anderson's failings in that regard are his fault, the fault of the state Democratic party, or any number of other reasons. The Sun Herald wrote a fantastic article when they (to my personal shock) endorsed Chaney. They explained -- in a way the CL never does -- why they thought Chaney was the better candidate. And it made sense. Perhaps it is insight like the Sun Herald editors' that will help future moderates (be they Democrats or not) run a better campaign and hopefully win. Newt

Author

Newt

Date

2007-11-13T16:08:19-06:00

ID

115688

Comment

I don't know about that Cliff. It's just as arguable he's stupid. Anybody ever wonder why rank racism didn't become a race card until Johnnie Cochran allegedly played it once upon a time to some black folks to spring OJ. By extrapolation, I guess white folks must have been playing the "race deck" to convict so many innocent black folks and to exonerate so many guilty killers of black folks before we realized this was a card game, and before Mississippi came screaming, dragging and limping into the 20th and 21st centuries. "That's funny rat der."Go on and admit it. Chaney was well qualified no doubt.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-13T16:21:49-06:00

ID

115689

Comment

I wouldn't vote for anybody with an oil tanker named after her. Period.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-13T16:37:47-06:00

ID

115690

Comment

But would Mississippi vote for Dr. Rice over any other white person who is not Hillary. Hillary, Bill and the Kennedys have become honorary black folks in the eyes of southerners as a result of being too loving toward us or pretending to care too deeply for us. Can I get a shold is, brothers and sisters?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-13T16:45:28-06:00

ID

115691

Comment

I'd vote for Dr. rice in a heartbeat. Her views on gun-gontrol are very grounded. When the church bombings happened in the city she lived in, her father approached the sherriff about more patrols in their neighborhood because the KKK was on the loose and burning crosses. The stupid, red-necked sob refused, so he organized all the other fathers to protect their own streets with armed patrols. Dr. Rice was pro-gun from then on. We're talking about a litle girl forming that opinion at a very early age. Who could blame her? Also, she's more qualified in world policy than Bush Sr. was when he was elected in 1988. She understands the world a hell of a lot more than Hillary. Please, give this woman some credit where it's due. She has a brillant mind and is fluent four languages. So, if you're tired of old, rich white guys, give her a chance.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-13T18:00:52-06:00

ID

115692

Comment

Rice seems more like a technocrat than a politician and while you need qualified people to serve in government, somebody who is at the top needs tons of charisma, and I'm not sure I've seen that in Rice. On the other hand Colin Powell has charisma in bounds but he's too centrist I think for the "wingnuts" as Donna calls them. Gah, where have all the Republican moderates gone?

Author

GLewis

Date

2007-11-14T06:47:41-06:00

ID

115693

Comment

Great letter in the Clarion Ledger today about how racism is a two-way street.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-14T08:24:21-06:00

ID

115694

Comment

Cliff, I read Dr. Rice's book a few years ago. I like her a little bit and believe she's smart. I have no reason at all to believe she's smarter than Hillary. Believe it or not, both of them is very smart. Hillary isn't dumb because you don't like her or her ideas and policies. Dr. Rice isn't dumb because I don't like her too much or her policies and ideas. I don't doubt you would vote for Dr. Rice, Cliff. But it's not you I'm worried about. I wouldn't be scared or uncomfortable hanging out with you at NASCAR events or other places (despite my jokes or comments about it in the past), but again you're not the one I'm worried about. Dr. Rice said in her book that she's not the genius people like to call her. She had to study and work hard to accomplish what she obtained. She further said while teaching at Stanford she has been able to see real genius of multiple races and knows she's not one. Yes, Dr. Rice is likely smarter than Bush 1. And I bet Democrats and Rrepulicans alike will agree that both Dr. Rice and Atttorney Hillary are smarter than Bush II. Hillary has a chance at becoming president but she will have to write off the south. The south is what it is and has always been. BTW, Dr. Rice's father was one of my fraternity brothers (he's now deceased). I could tell you lots of things about him but I won't do it here. He did good by his family and Condi, but he wasn't really a major part of any changes that occurred in Birmingham or elsewhere along the lines of race relations.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-14T09:03:00-06:00

ID

115695

Comment

Interesting stuff Ray. We should get together and hang out. I'd like to hear more.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-14T09:31:06-06:00

ID

115696

Comment

Great letter in the Clarion Ledger today about how racism is a two-way street. Actually it's about how "prejudice" (or bigotry) is a two-way street. That is different from "racism." There is no need to mix up the two things unless one doesn't want to ackowledge that there is a really insidious kind of bigotry that the powerful use to keep others down. If we don't acknowledge that, and just claim that racism is the same as bigotry, then we will never do anything about it. Not saying you're doing that on purpose, Cliff. It's a common error, but one we must be deliberate about fixing if we mean what we say. Racism, by it's very -ism, is not a "two-way street." It's one way—from the people with the power and dominant position in society to use their bigotry against an entire race of people. Bigotry can, indeed, flow both ways—or, as we're seeing with immigration, many directions. Now, as I've said before, victimized groups could later become "racist" when they have achieved enough power over other groups. Thus, white Americans some day could be the victims of "racism," but not yet. Bigotry, yes. This is an important distinction because the two things require different sets of responses -- and, oddly enough, supporting a system of racism is often *less* conscious than being a bigot (because individual bigotry is more personal, and racism is systemic subjugation of a race of people). A perfect example is a white man during Jim Crow who had "black friends," but did nothing about (or promoted) legalized segregation or even race violence. Or, a politician who talks lovingly to African American friends and co-workers (and perhaps with absolute sincerity), but attends racist rallies to get votes. That is "racist," because it is supporting the system of subjugation, but the politician himself may be absolutely convinced that he is not "prejudiced" against black people. He's just doing what he has to do to get votes. The Ike Brown scheme to block white voters is a hint of how racism could switch sides—except that he didn't have enough power or support to pull it off. He tried to use his bigotry to be a racist, but it didn't work for him because the system is not in place to back him up. Hope this is making sense. Pretty complicated for a chick who still needs another cup of coffee. Bottom line: It serves every one of us, and our society, for all to seek to understand the difference between racism and prejudice/bigotry. Then we can more easily understand each other well enough to do something about it all. Whining that everybody is racist just alienates the real victims of racism (as it should) and shows an ignorance (and perhaps obstinance) on the part of the person saying it. Let's move after the defensiveness that creates that lack of understanding, and get to fixing things.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-14T09:53:29-06:00

ID

115697

Comment

Cliff Cargill, your assessment of Rice is interesting. I, too, think that she is "smart" however, I can not overlook the fact that she is dumb enough to be a Bush crap cleaner-upper. It is not easy to overlook what happened to Colin Powell and the fact that Condi said that he was "not in the loop" meaning that she was privy to information that he did not have. Colin's personal suffering for the war is too sad. He was truly the "fall guy" and Dr. Rice had no problem with his being booted out. Rice has been totally ineffective as Secretary of State and she has made no appreciable contribution towards bringing the slightest bit of change in America's position for world peace. Everything is about war or threats of war: Seemingly her strong suit would be diplomacy. It hasn't happened. Rice should have stayed on her academic tract or entered the political arena at another time and perhaps another party. Dr. Rice has the BFB to overcome, Bush, Female, and Black.

Author

justjess

Date

2007-11-14T10:26:40-06:00

ID

115698

Comment

Yeah, I figured Dr. Rice's dad would lose her some credibility points with people. Unfortunately, like all kids, she didn't have a choice, or the reasoning, at such a young age to do anything but follow her parents. Her dad was also tough enough to know to keep weapons (guns) ready for KKK'ers. But, to comment on Hillary, Dr. Rice would chew her up and spit her out like sunflower seed hulls. She is way more accomplished and experienced! Dr. Rice has been smart enough to avoid men who, ultimately, are an embarrassment because they can't keep their pants zipped for 8 years. Kinda like ball players who just can't stay out of trouble for the few years they play. You have to ask, why risk the embarrassment for a "muscle spasm," cause that's all it is once that brief moment is over! Dr. Rice actually knows abut European and Russian politics having been engaged in it years before Hillary was ever first lady of AR. Put politics aside; Dr. Rice is 200% times the person than Hillary will ever be - even if she becomes president. I recommend reading Peggy Noonans editorial about Hillary, and Camille Paglia's piece today. From Noonan: I wonder if Sen. Obama, as he makes his climb, understands the kind of quiet cheering he is beginning to garner from some Republicans, and from those not affiliated with either party. They see him as a Democrat who could cure the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton sickness. I call it that because it seems to me now less like a dynastic tug of war than a symptom of deterioration, a lazy, unserious and faintly corrupt turn to be taken by the oldest and greatest democracy in the history of man. And I say sickness because on some level I think it is driven by a delusion: "We will be safe with these ruling families, whom we know so well." But we won't. They have no special magic. Dynasticism brings with it a sense of deterioration. It is dispiriting. I am not sure of the salience of Mr. Obama's new-generational approach. Mrs. Clinton's generation, he suggests, is caught in the 1960s, fighting old battles, clinging to old divisions, frozen in time, and the way to get past it is to get past her. Maybe this will resonate. But I don't think Mrs. Clinton is the exemplar of a generation, she is the exemplar of a quadrant within a generation, and it is the quadrant the rest of us of that generation do not like. They came from comfort and stability, visited poverty as part of a college program, fashionably disliked their country, and cultivated a bitterness that was wholly unearned. They went on to become investment bankers and politicians and enjoy wealth, power or both. Mr. Obama should go after them, not a generation but a type, the smug and entitled. No one really likes them. They showed it this week. Hello! Talk to me Peggy! From Paglia: The presidential sweepstakes are too harsh an arena for tenderfoot novices. Hillary's much-vaunted "experience" has evidently not extended to the dynamic give-and-take of authentic debate. The mild challenges she has faced would be pitiful indeed by British standards, which favor a caustic style of witty put-downs that draw applause and gales of laughter in the House of Commons. Women had better toughen up if they aspire to be commander in chief. ...They may unfortunately split the anti-Hillary vote (a majority of registered Democrats) so that she slips through. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will certainly vote for her. But I continue to find it hard to believe that my party truly craves that long nightmare of déjà vu - with scandal after scandal disgorged and an endless train of abused women returning from Bill Clinton's sordid, anti-feminist past. OK, I just blew this thread up - sorry.

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-11-14T10:40:18-06:00

ID

115699

Comment

I would read it Pike, but I try not read bullcrap. Smile. Also, Pike, I know you know that Hillary would perform with less skill upon trying to learn and master Russian, German, the piano and all that other bullsh1t Condi has to master to be the blind fool that master Bush wants her to be. I also know you know Dr. Rice could perform better than Hillary in undergraduate and law school, too. I don't know how you know it but I know you do know, otherwise you wouldn't say it. There is little or no comparison to the education both received, so I argue we don't know who would do better in fair competition or who is actually smarter. Unlike you Pike I prefer to also consider Condi's own words in my assessment and description of her. Not everything can be blamed on Dr. Rice's daddy, but I do blame him where he can be blamed. Anyway, Condi grew up one day. Was Condi's daddy merely tough enough or did he know the evil barbarians would readily bring to his doorsteps and family. I guess he was tough enough to leave Alabama too while Fred Shuttleworth, Dr. King and many more stayed, fought and suffered physically, emotionally, mentally and some even fatally, the battle for freedom, justice, safety and humanity of black folks in general, not merely thier children. Once some semblance of justice, freedom and equality happened, Condi ran over other children who parents fought and suffered for the cause to make sure she was first in line to reap the benefits. This doesn't matter to you Pike no less, but it matters to me. This may be your kind of hero, but it's not mines. I agree that racism and prejudice aren't the same thing. I'd be surprised to learn I ever said all whites were racist or possessed the same feelings or emotion of any nature and type. I have said repeatedly and will continue to say that racism is a force connected to or driven by great solidarity and loyalty. Maybe irrational fear too. Otherwise, I don't see how it could be so effective and enduring. There are many people not racist to counter-balance the racists, but I always worry they're insufficient ensure justice is done without regard to racism, prejudice or some other pathology when it counts. Few people share my impressions unless and until they choose or is forced to walk in my shoes. I understand this, and often tells the finally belatedly illuminated to get out of my face.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-14T12:09:21-06:00

ID

115700

Comment

"The Ike Brown scheme to block white voters is a hint of how racism could switch sides—except that he didn't have enough power or support to pull it off. He tried to use his bigotry to be a racist, but it didn't work for him because the system is not in place to back him up." I see what you're saying. So, if Ike had the power structure in place to pull off his scheme to block whites from voting, and whatever else he was trying to pull, then he's a racist. But, without that power he's just a plain bigot.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-15T06:21:46-06:00

ID

115701

Comment

Great post about Dr. Rice pike.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-15T06:22:55-06:00

ID

115702

Comment

It's funny that y'all call Rice "Dr. Rice" but Hillary "Hillary." Is that just because the senator is a Democrat, and the secretary is a Republican? Just wondering, and I'm someone who's not a fan of either, so that's not why I'm asking. It just seemed rather stark in your posts. It is certainly a flip from the days of old in Mississippi. Kind of. Depending on what one thinks of "Dr. Rice."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-15T09:58:12-06:00

ID

115703

Comment

Oh, and I don't think they used courtesy titles on the side of the oil tanker, for what it's worth.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-15T09:58:58-06:00

ID

115704

Comment

That was startling to me too Donna, which is why I didn't say anything about it. Cliff and Pike certainly have evolved or "come up" from where ole-time Mississippians has been. That is also why I called Hillary an attorney in one of my posts. I'll also admit this is partially why I changed my tone a little bit. They certainly showed much respect for Condi, but I didn't. Interesting dynamics going on here for sure. He, he.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-15T10:07:06-06:00

ID

115705

Comment

I'm not sure that means anything. Some politicians have done well with their first name as their "brand name": Ike, Adlai, "W," all come to mind, and there are others. In fact, Senator Clinton's bumper stickers and yard signs say "Hillary for President."

Author

GenShermansGhost

Date

2007-11-15T10:17:49-06:00

ID

115706

Comment

Hey Ray, How do you know I've evolved? I've tried to be color-blind all my life. Ask Donna.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-15T10:26:21-06:00

ID

115707

Comment

It means 2 white men from the south, unlike 50 years ago, would support an outstanding black women born in the south over an arguably equally competent white female. I must add that republicans have started to fighting back on here again. I had slapped many up side the heads for the last 6 months to almost a year, and they all turned the other cheek. I had become convinced they had no pulse anymore. Then this election got 'em riled up again. Now they shoot before I turn around - dirty dueling, they call it.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-15T10:26:35-06:00

ID

115708

Comment

Cilff, I didn't mean you in particular. I've seen your picture on television and the internet, you don't look 50 years of age. I only used you, Pike me as examples or a figure of speech.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-15T10:29:08-06:00

ID

115709

Comment

And I was generalizing, always a bad thing to do.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-15T10:30:00-06:00

ID

115710

Comment

As for the hillary thing, I don't use "Sen." in front of her name because I don't respect her, nor will I ever. It's the same reason I say "little frankie" instead of "Mayor Melton". I don't respect him either.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-15T10:32:42-06:00

ID

115711

Comment

I haven't known you all your life, just for a couple years. But I have no reason not to believe you. You may be a gun nut, but you impress me on the race issue. (smile) I like Republicans speaking up; just not those wingnuts who make everything so personal and then get all offended outraged when we boot 'em for pulling out every icky personal insult they can think of if we dare to disagree with them on one thing. Of course, nutballs (on the left) do that, too, as we've seen of late. Those folks cancel each other out, and the rest of us are stuck with each other. A respectable, if motley, bunch, I'd say. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-15T10:37:44-06:00

ID

115712

Comment

As for the hillary thing, I don't use "Sen." in front of her name because I don't respect her, nor will I ever. I think that's unfortunate. It strikes me as an unhealthy development in our democracy that we can't show respect for people elected by our fellow citizens, whether or not one agrees with them.

Author

GenShermansGhost

Date

2007-11-15T10:40:43-06:00

ID

115713

Comment

Cliff Cargill, you have every right to support or not support any candidate you choose; however, just for the record, give me three (3) things that make you a "Hilary Hater"- so much so that you will not use "Senator in front of her name....." I do not refer to melton as Mayor and I always use small letters when writing about him; therefor, I know that people can arrive at this point. I would just like to understand your position.

Author

justjess

Date

2007-11-15T10:45:14-06:00

ID

115714

Comment

I'd like to know this too cliff. Why is she so offensive down here in Mississippi?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-15T10:49:34-06:00

ID

115715

Comment

hillary doesn't support the Second Amendment. hillary treats here Secret Service portotective team like trash. And... On Sept. 14, 2001, hillary visited Ground Zero. You might not have read it in the New York Times, but many of New York's finest, the police officers and firemen, refused to shake her hand. These heroes see things much more clearly than the average America who still does not know the real Hillary. On Oct. 20, 2002 she was literally booed off the stage at Paul McCartney's benefit Concert for New York. The boos were substantially edited out when the tape was sold to the public. I saw the tape myself on the news. Ray, like I said the Dr. Rice would own this state if she ran.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-15T10:59:47-06:00

ID

115716

Comment

BTW... I've seen many, many people on this forum that feel the same way about President Bush.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-15T11:01:57-06:00

ID

115717

Comment

I've seen many, many people on this forum that feel the same way about President Bush. I agree, but I still think the President should be referred to with respect. He markets the name "W", so I guess that is ok, (which is why I think calling Sen. Clinton "Hillary" is ok), but when folks use derogatory names for public officials they are insulting the citizens who elected those officials. There's a difference between the person and the position to which they've been elected. And as for New Yorkers knowing Hillary, I would note that she has been elected twice by those same voters.

Author

GenShermansGhost

Date

2007-11-15T11:09:23-06:00

ID

115718

Comment

I just don't get the attraction for Dr. Rice, she's smart and good looking but she doesn't strike me as a politician, somebody making deals and kissing babies. The fact that she's been out in front on the Iraq issue is a definate negative to me-she's following orders sure but I don't hear anybody saying she disagrees with the underlying policy. Anybody currently involved in this Iraq mess surely isn't getting my vote.

Author

GLewis

Date

2007-11-15T11:15:52-06:00

ID

115719

Comment

Cliff, Bush did start that War of Mass Deception, the War Against Error, and the futile Faxes of Evil concoction. Congress still "obliging, troops still rising, but no BenLaden." Or end in sight for the war, I might add. I have no problem hating a president like this. If republicans would be honest they should hate him too. I believe lots of folks would vote for Condi, but they shouldn't. She and Bush have perfomed miserably.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-15T11:16:28-06:00

ID

115720

Comment

I meant weapons of mass deception.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-15T11:19:04-06:00

ID

115721

Comment

Sorry Sherman, respect is EARNED not arbitrarily given. regardless. Thats the problem with this country now. A position means nothing. It is a name. hopefull, there is a noble person IN the position that earns the respect of his constituents. but lately we haven gotten that. Rice earned her "Dr." title so its hers. That doesnt mean we HAVE to say "Sen." Clinton. or "President" Bush for that matter. ---k Bush!!! You know me:-) I dont bow to man.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-11-15T11:20:52-06:00

ID

115722

Comment

Glewis:"I just don't get the attraction for Dr. Rice, she's smart and good looking but she doesn't strike me as a politician, somebody making deals and kissing babies." Exactly. I don't want a"politician", I want a leader. Dr. Rice is also far more qualified than Sen. Obama.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-15T12:16:05-06:00

ID

115723

Comment

Cliff, forgive me for asking, but please tell me how you conclude Dr. Rice isn't ____ing up grossly in the job she already holds? Do you want another George Bush? Condoleeza might be smart, and might have gotten caught shaking her "grove thang" to one of Shaggy's song, but the women is a dipstick. Even the low standards repubs considered running her off a few times for such dismal performances. Obama would eat her lunch. Did you not see her perfomance before one of those committee where she looked Alberta-like? You know, she couldn't remember which lies she had previously told or the ones she was supposed to tell then. Like I said before, the problem with being full of crap is you can't remember all of it.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-15T12:26:00-06:00

ID

115724

Comment

the women is a dipstick. Ray makes a good point, Cliff. It's really hard to point to something she's done right. In many ways, she's Bush's Shirlene Anderson. Think about it. I know it's easy for a non-racist Republican to be dazzled by a black conservative, and for reasons that can be honorable and well-meaning, but it is no compliment to praise an incompetent person, or a doormat, when s/he doesn't deserve it, regardless of race.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-15T16:31:51-06:00

ID

115725

Comment

.."Dr. Rice is also far more qualified than Sen. Obama." Whaaaaaa? Cliff my friend, you just completely lost all credibility on this subject. Disengage. Abort.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-11-15T16:39:49-06:00

ID

115726

Comment

Your partisanship is showing, Cliff. A rhetorical question: Would you support a candidate who would take (or justify taking) American soldiers into wars based on false pretenses without the equipment they need or decent resources when/if they return over a candidate who you perceive to be unfriendly to the Second Amendment? In other words, are guns your wedge issue, regardless of record or other stances?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-15T16:42:32-06:00

ID

115727

Comment

..."In other words, are guns your wedge issue, regardless of record or other stances?" Thats the question I ALWAYS wanted to ask of cliff.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-11-15T16:46:20-06:00

ID

115728

Comment

Any politician that would take away the citizenry's right to bear arms will gladly trample on the rest of the constitution. If the citizenry can't fight back, we're screwed. So, YES is the answer that you're looking for. As for Dr. Rice taking soldiers to war under false pretense, where's the evidence of that? How is hillary capable of being president? Sen. Obama? What have they done to make them worthy of that office? Y'all tell me, for a change. You still won't change my mind about any of it, as I'm sure you won't be swayed as well.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-15T17:32:45-06:00

ID

115729

Comment

I haven't said that Clinton or Obama would be good presidents. The question was whether you will vote for a jacka$$ if they're in favor of guns. I honestly cannot think of any one issue that would make me vote for someone despite anything else they've done. Against, certainly.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-15T17:35:48-06:00

ID

115730

Comment

I'm not trying to change your mind, by the way. Just probing how a one-issue brain works. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-15T17:36:20-06:00

ID

115731

Comment

The Obama thing was for Kaze, and I'm sure many here will vote for hillary. When we're speaking of wedge issues, yes, the Second Amendment will sway many voters. Some will be willing to die for it, myself included. It's not just about guns, it's about freedom.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-15T17:46:58-06:00

ID

115732

Comment

Those who live by the gun, die by the gun. I live by love, justice, truth, freedom, compassion, empathy, sympathy, reason, logic, cerebration toleration, et al, and I don't let zealots or extremists of any nature and kind (i.e. dead presidents, generals, so-called leaders or other crazy ass living capitalists) tell me what those terms mean. Reading, thinking and observation define these terms for me. I appreciate guns only for self defense and protection of others unjustly harmed or threatened.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-16T08:02:49-06:00

ID

115733

Comment

Its not just about guns, its about fanaticism!!! Cuz it appears that freedom to you is only equated with your right to posess weapons. and unfortuantely that appears to be number one on your list. and I dont think itll sawy anyone except NRA folks. Im much more concerned with my right to criticize an inept government. (which some gun-nuts tell me I shouldnt be able to do)

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-11-16T15:07:00-06:00

ID

115734

Comment

Anyone see this? Voter fraud. Intimidation. Flase arrest. Destruction of a canidate's property. I hope the JFP will do a story on it.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-18T20:27:35-06:00

ID

115735

Comment

Even if true, which I will need to see proof of, it won't touch the surface of what repugnants have and are doing.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-19T10:10:39-06:00

ID

115736

Comment

It proves Ike Brown isn't a one-off. It also proves that no matter what a persons color is, they're all capable of this behavior.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-11-19T10:40:00-06:00

ID

115737

Comment

Is there any doubt that people of various races are "capable of" trying to influence the vote? Or do anything else wrong? Of course not. It would be absurd to argue otherwise. The pertinent question is whether they have the power behind them to pull it off, as our white predecessors in this state did. It becomes an "-ism" when they do. Before that point, though, it's a crime that needs to be dealt with as a crime. And it sounds like that is happening. Good.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-19T10:43:29-06:00

ID

115738

Comment

I already know Ike Brown wasn't the only Democrat cheating at the polls. Just as I knew cheating, shunned and schizo (Catherine Harris) wasn't the only republican cheating at the polls and elsewhere. Show me an important competition with human beings involved in a fight for power and I'll soon show you some multifaceted evildoings including cheating. I'm all for stopping the cheating, but I don't play the games of making Ike Brown the poster child for cheating at the polls or at elections. Jim Herod (or whatever his last name is) is my poster child in Mississippi.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-11-19T11:52:03-06:00