Jackson Free Press

The Cottonmouth Blog is taking Sid Salter to task for his bizarre and rather desperate attempts to defend Haley Barbour and his blind trust, especially about a snipe Salter took at Jamie Franks for trying to strengthen ethics laws (for political reasons)—that Cottonmouth says just doesn't check out:

The only Ethics Commission Bill that saw life during the 2007 session, besides the Commissions' appropriation bill, was House Bill 1532, which passed the House of Representatives (second base) and went to the Senate (third base) where the Honorable Charlie Ross killed it in his committee on February 27, 2007 (homerun depending on which team you're on). The authors of the bill were Representatives Bobby Moak, Chuck Espy and Omeria Scott. You did get the part right that it was trying to address the glaring statutory omission of election officials' blind trusts as income vehicles that deserve reporting to the public.

It's too bad that Franks didn't try to strengthen the ethics laws—it's hilarious to me that, somehow, Salter thinks that would be a bad thing. He is really twisting himself into logic pretzels to say that Barbour did nothing wrong because the Ethics Commission hasn't busted him for it—even though they seem to make an exception for him, and the ethics law is very weak here.

And I really love the folks who are saying that "he broke no laws" as a reason to say Barbour's living off his blind trust in a firm that is profiting on the Coast is not a problem. Uh, voter ID hasn't been "the law," either, and it hasn't stopped a lot of y'all from whining about it and demanding that it be changed. Clearly, we need to demand that the ethics law be strengthened just to deal with Barbour's high-level hubris and cronyism, if for no other reason.

And, and look at Salter's excuse o' the day today. LOL:

And make no mistake, this is a manufactured story.

Right. We're going to believe The Clarion-Ledger over Bloomberg. Uh-huh. Yep. Got it.

Roll again.

Previous Commentsshow

Salter and the Ledger, by the way, are ignoring the big question here. If it is true, as Bloomberg said, that Barbour owns stock in Interpublic, which bought his lobbying firm, and it's worth a lot of money—then WHO told the Ledger edit-boyz in January 2004 that he had sold it all!?! Why won't they tell us? Are we going to have another situation like their lawsuit with Melton where the editors knew (or should have known under the Gannett code of ethics) that Melton was lying under oath when he said he did not leak the memo to the Ledger D.C. reporter? Who lied to y'all, Ledger? The public needs to know.

DonnaLadd

Sep 4 2007

And if Barbour had told the Ethics Commission that he owned no stock in order to get his "pass," then that's a huge problem. But no bigger than telling the public one thing, and a small group sworn to secrecy, another. It is a red herring to whine about who leaked this information. What is important is the information itself? They should have learned from Delay et al that whining about the messinger will only get you so far.

DonnaLadd

Sep 4 2007

BTW, all the fake outrage about WHO LEAKED THE DOCUMENT rather reminds me of the yucks who complained when the JFP got the crime stats that the Melton administration had been hiding for months. Instead on focusing on how awful the news was, they wanted to know who "leaked" public information. In this case, we're talking about information that should be public and isn't probaby only because Barbour is Big Bad Powerful Barbour. The attorney general was right to push him to release this information—and if Barbour didn't know how bad it would look, he would have released it. He is wallowing in a bed of his own making here.

DonnaLadd

Sep 4 2007

This is funny. Even though just above he had called this a "manufactured story," make no mistake now, Salter just listed five substantive questions that the Bloomberg story has put on the table. Not bad for a "manufactured story." He just proved beyond a reasonable doubt how real it is. This might be my favorite bullet point, per Salter: Fourth: There's the issue of the Jim Hood letter. If he really believes Barbour is in violation of state ethics laws, he should go to court and charge him. Let the process play out in the state trial and appellate courts. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court will overrule the Ethics Commission. I doubt it. Hint, so does Jim Hood. First, Barbour's supporters would have screamed bloody murder had Hood charged him without trying to get Barbour to do the right thing, and Salter knows it. This is a bait and switch. Secondly, what does it *say* about our Supreme Court that they would simply go along with the questionable Ethics Commission question (Salter says himself the ethics laws need to be changed) should Hood charge him (and, thus, waste the taxpayer's money, per Barbourians)? Salter is definitely focusing on the wrong horse here in his analysis that is spiraling in on itself by the day. Why can't Salter just admit that his guy isn't perfect and call for him to do something, anything, to dig himself out of all this? Oh, and tell us who lied to the Ledger about Barbour's stock in Interpublic? Let's stay on topic here.

DonnaLadd

Sep 4 2007

Oooo wee. John Leek at Cottonmouth now has up an excellent post, deliciously called "Sid, Vicious, calling out Sid Salter's sleights of hands in trying to cover the Barbour's Butt in Blind-trust-gate. (Or, maybe we should just cut to the chase and call it Katrina-gate, considering that that is what it's really about—what associates and relatives profited off the hurricane, not to mention Barbour himself, being that he holds stock in a firm that got work down there.) Money quotes: He questions where Bloomberg News got the information and alleges that the Ethics Commission leaked it. He introduces supposed motive for the Director and a member of the Commission, but then says he of course believes them when they say they are not responsible. No matter what he says after that he knows he has lit the flame of suspicion. Partisan Republican websites now have up posts and polls asking which person is responsible for the leak reinforcing the smear that one of them is responsible. He knew what he was doing when he wrote that. His intention was and is to deflect any negative attention from Haley Barbour. In that defense he doesn't care who he hurts and he's crafty enough to know how to write his article to introduce the needed information while continuing to appear somewhat hands off. Leek is right. Sid is trying to deflect for Barbour, and it's stinks to the high heavens as he tries to blame everybody in site but Barbour. Of course, it is also transparent this time, and people are paying attention. Also, I had missed this earlier Cottonmouth missive, questioning Sid's facts, and picking up my thread about who lied to The Clarion-Ledger editorial board in January 2004 about the stock. When is Sid going to answer that vera, vera pertinent question? (Maybe never: Remember that they refused to tell CL readers that Melton was lying under oath in the Meridian lawsuit, or EVEN that the Ledger was wound up in that lawsuit with him when they endorsed him? So why would they come clean now?) Meantime, a real shout-out to Cottonmouth for great blogging. Y'all are a force to be reckoned with. It doesn't hurt to have ugly truth on your side. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Sep 4 2007

Thanks, we appreciate the recognition. I've noticed that on many of these posts including this thread here on JFP that there isn't the usual conservative garbage response. I kind of think they fear it, because there isn't an easy way out if one is honest about it. Haley Barbour has done things that have been highly unethical. It's not clear he broke any laws, but those who worship Holy Haley should remove their rose colored glasses and look at Barbour warts and all. Even with warts they may decide to vote for him, but they shouldn't kid themselves that he is something he's not.

john leek

Sep 4 2007

Thanks, John. I agree with you: This is a tough one to respond to, unless you're willing to pretzel yourself (I could replace pretzel with another word, but I'll be a lady about it) the way Salter has. Since we started this site five years ago this month, allowing commentary from the beginning, we've found that when the evidence is truly on the table, the defenders (whether Melonheads, Bushies, Barbourians or Clintonians for that matter) tend to shut up and disappear into the woodwork. Or we get trolls trying to tell everyone here why we/they/"liberals"/"communists"/"socialists" suck, and we don't allow trolling to disrupt intelligent dialogue and debate. People of different political views are welcome to post here and discuss issues respectfully and from various angles, but they need to come armed with attributable facts, or the JFP blogosphere (of the left, right and in between) will call them out on it. And as you say, just because there may not be particular laws on the books that govern what Barbour has done, that doesn't mean it's not wrong, unethical, unconscionable. Just think back 40 years ago to what was allowed in our state because it was "legal." Conveniently falling back on "the law" when it's convenient (in this case, immigration for instance) and screaming to change "the law" when it's not (abortion rights, voter ID) is simply hypocritical and a transparent excuse. It's truly amazing, and a bit mortifying, to watch Salter defend him no matter what. I knew he was a fan, but I really wouldn't have thought he would take it this far. Good work blogging on this. Y'all are a needed voice in the state's growing blogosphere.

DonnaLadd

Sep 5 2007

OK, today Salter says that the Ledger wasn't really scooped by Bloomberg: The Clarion-Ledger was reporting on Democratic Party and Common Cause criticism of the Barbour blind trust back in February. The C-L first reported components of this story back in 2004. Y'all help me out. What did the Ledger report on this back in 2004 other than the apparently false meme that Barbour owned no stock in Interpublic? And why won't Salter deal with that question and where they got their bum information? Another thing that bears saying (especially in response to Barbour's idiotic memes about the "New York media" to appeal to the ignorance he assumes Mississippians have in abundance) is that this is a story of *national* interest, especially how Barbour handled federal dollars on the Coast, which of his friends and associates benefitted from work there (including himself if he has stock in the lobbying firm still), and how federal Republicans may have allowed one of their strongest operatives to manipulate the disaster-relief system. Also, being that his name has been rather bandied about in silly fashion as vice presidential material, we can sit here with a front-row seat and watch that farfetched idea go up in flames. As if his radical-right views aren't anathema enough, especially in a time when the GOP is courting someone as lefty as Rudy, Republicans around the country don't want someone on the ticket who was willing to allow his relatives and business associates to benefit off our nation's biggest natural disaster in recent history. Even if some individual Republicans don't give a damn, they know it's bad politics, and they have enough problems on their hands without throwing something like this onto the pile. So even if Mississippians are coddled into thinking Barbour's money games don't matter, the rest of the country will pay attention. And should.

DonnaLadd

Sep 5 2007

Oh, and one more point on this, and I gotta fly. The hand-wringing about the "leak" from the commission—do we know it was from the commission???—makes no sense in light of the fact that Barbour either provided false information to the public in early 2004, or let it sit out there without being corrected, if someone else provided it. In other words, allowing the public to think something untrue about your financial situation makes it clear that he gave up his right for the true information to stay confidential. It reminds me of the problem The Clarion-Ledger had with Melton lying under oath about not leaking the Meridian memo. OK, protecting an honest source is one thing. But what happens when you discover that he is lying? And he happens to be running for office? Do you withhold that information as the Ledger did? Then do you ENDORSE him for that office, knowing full well that he is lying to the public about something major? Someone who cares about accountability of public servants sure the hell doesn't try to change the subject by whining about who leaked the damn truth. That's just counter to the principles this country is built on. And it's politics at its lowdown, pond-scum worse.

DonnaLadd

Sep 5 2007

"Someone who cares about accountability of public servants sure the hell doesn't try to change the subject by whining about who leaked the damn truth. That's just counter to the principles this country is built on." True, and Sid Salter has said that he values such things, but apparently those values are as they say a mile wide and an inch deep.

john leek

Sep 5 2007

Well, at least there's Bobby Harrison out there asking the right questions and redeeming the state's daily media. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Sep 5 2007

Unless the CL/Gannett group has some vested interest in defending a vaguely republican governor in his shady financial dealings.... I dunno, I'd believe he'd do it. Why shouldn't he, when he knows no one will vote him out?

Ironghost

Sep 5 2007