Jim Herring's Blog

A John Grisham Novel

2012-02-02T14:06:00.000-08:00

The former Reagan speech writer, Peggy Noonan, had it about right in her January 21, 2012, column in the Wall Street Journal, when she said:

“We have entered a new phase, the John Grisham novel, secret off-shore bank account, broken love, the testimony of anguished ex-wives; ‘He wanted an open marriage. A battered old veteran emerges from the background and, in his electoral death throes, provides secret information – ‘I’m for Newt’ – that he hopes will upend a dirty, rotten establishment. A vest-wearing choir boy turns out to be the unknown winner of that case back in Iowa. And all this against the backdrop of a mysterious firm that moves in and destroys communities – ‘when Mitt Romney came to town…’ – while its CEO pays nothing in taxes.”

I agree with Peggy’s analysis when she said: “What’s happening out there on the trail is a great story. But it’s not a good story. And the past few days it didn’t feel like a story that was going to end well.” The Republican free-for-all of 2012 has confirmed once again what many have been saying for months, if not years - that there are two major wings of the national Republican Party: the “economic issue Republicans” and the “social issue Republicans”. This schism was first clearly demonstrated on the national level in the epic Republican primary battle of 1976 between the conservative forces of the challenger, Ronald Reagan, against the more moderate forces of the sitting Republican President, Gerald Ford. In that year, Gerald Ford had served as Vice-President by virtue of an appointment by Richard Nixon, who later resigned as a result of the Watergate scandals and allowed Ford to take his place. Once he became President, Ford promptly appointed Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York as his Vice-President and kept his friend, Henry Kissinger, on as his Secretary of State.

Rockefeller and Kissinger were despised by the Reaganites and the followers of Barry Goldwater, who often said they would like to saw-off the northeastern portion of the United States and let it drift out into the Atlantic. They had particular disdain for the “Rockefeller Republicans”, and Vice-President Rockefeller ultimately agreed to step down and let Senator Bob Dole of Kansas become Ford’s running mate (after Ford barely defeated Reagan for the Republican nomination in 1976) in his campaign to be elected President on his own against Democrat Jimmy Carter.

As stated by Gerald Seib in his Wall Street Journal article dated January 17, 2012, the economic establishment faction of the Republican Party says economic growth and job creation are far and away the most important issues in the 2012 election; and all other concerns are secondary. This is essentially the Romney message in this year’s Republican Primary and the message of his supporters based in Massachusetts and the northeast. As Seib points out, Romney pushes his spectacular success in the business world, which explains why Gingrich attacks Romney’s experience running Baine Capital and charges that the private-equity firm, while making money for investors, was actually dismantling companies and “shedding jobs”.

The social-issue Republicans (often referred to in the news media as “evangelicals” or “born-again Republicans”), believe that traditional family values are of much greater importance than do most of their more secular fellow Republicans of the northeast. Gingrich and Rick Santorum criticize Romney’s record and position on guns, abortion, and other social issues. This explains why Romney emphasizes Gingrich’s ethics problems which he encountered while Speaker of the House and why Romney charges that Gingrich resigned as Speaker of the House “in disgrace”.

There are two other smaller factions in the Republican Party which Mr. Seib refers to as “the deficit faction” and “the national security faction”, which emphasizes a strong military and national security. The patron saint of the deficit faction is Ron Paul, who is basically an isolationist and in favor of massive cuts in federal spending, while at the same time promoting economic growth.

So there we have it: an authentic, northeastern establishment, Rockefeller Republican pitted against the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, who has heavy baggage on family values and ethics issues. Waiting in the wings, yet to be fully assaulted by the Super PACS, is former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who lost by almost 20 points the last time he ran for the U.S. Senate in his home state.

I note that Michael Reagan is supporting Gingrich while most establishment Republicans, like Bob Dole and George H. W. Bush, are all supporting Romney. How will the ultimate Republican winner look to the voters by the fall? What are independents going to think of our nominee? Peggy Noonan gave the following opinion:

“We all know politics ain’t beanbag, but it’s not supposed to be clown-car Indy 500 with cars hitting the wall and guys in wigs littering the track.

There’s been a lot of damage. We lose sense of it day to day, but in the aggregate it’s going to prove considerable.”

THE CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD

2012-01-06T08:33:00.000-08:00

The frenetic Iowa Republican Presidential Primary is now over, and my sense is that Republicans in general have already lost the first round of the 2012 presidential sweepstakes. The spectacle in Iowa, with the full participation of the northeastern Republican “establishment” at the highest levels; as well as their campaign consultants, “Super-PACs” and the candidates themselves, has given immeasurable aid and comfort to President Obama and those who wish to transform the United States into a European-style socialist nation where American ingenuity and our capitalistic free-enterprise system is permanently put in moth balls for future study by historians.

As Karl Rove noted in a recent Wall Street Journal article (Dec. 22, 2011): “Obama will frame this election as a fight for the middle class. He told his Kansas audience that America was once a place where ‘hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried.’ Now, as he informed ’60 Minutes’ correspondent Steve Kroft, ‘the rules are rigged’ against ‘middle class families’”.

If Rove is correct (and I believe he is) the realization that the 2012 Obama re-election strategy will be a frontal assault on the American way of life and the free market society, should send cold chills up the spine of every Republican and every person who loves and considers America to be the last real beacon of hope for freedom in this world. Accordingly, one would think that responsible Republican candidates for President (and their advisors and supporters) would have recognized the stakes we are playing for in this election, and would have conducted themselves in a civil manner when debating each other so as not to do permanent damage to the Republican cause once the primary season is completed. Unfortunately, this was not the case in Iowa.

Instead, each of the candidates at one time or another were subjected to brutal attacks if they showed any sign of gaining traction with their message, and breaking out of the pack. These attacks took many forms. Some became deeply personal (my favorites: “If you cheat on your spouse, you could cheat on your business partner”; and “my opponents are anti-muslim”). Other attacks described their victims as being of such low character as to be basically unfit to be in the presence of decent, god-fearing men and women, much less to be President of the United States.

The northeastern Republican “establishment”, the national conservative media, as well as the “Super-PACs” (those anonymous organizations created for special purposes or to support a certain candidate) and their consultants also fully participated in the negative onslaught through paid direct-mail and television advertising designed to bring down certain candidates without their opponents having to dirty their hands in the process.

Undeniably, negative advertising works in political campaigns but negative advertising is also divisive and drives down voter-turnout, because the voters are often disgusted with the tactics employed to attack a victim. They are also often repelled by those making the attacks. In my opinion, the negative attacks by candidates on fellow Republicans in Iowa became so widespread, so divisive and so deeply personal, that I fear the Republican Party and its ultimate nominee for President have been permanently and unnecessarily damaged, all to the benefit of President Obama.

It has been said by some that politics is a “contact sport” and while Republicans may fight hard against each other in the 2012 primaries, they will come together in the fall to oppose President Obama in the general election. Undoubtedly, many (if not most) Republicans will come together in the general election. However, if the Republican base is divided, disheartened and unenthusiastic in November, 2012 (as it was in 2008 when John McCain was the nominee), President Obama will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat once again.

BILL WALLER

2011-12-08T08:19:00.000-08:00

In the preface to his book of memoirs – “Straight Ahead” – Bill Waller, Mississippi’s fifty-sixth governor, stated that when he first ran for Governor in 1967, Mississippi’s “political system had been virtually unchanged since the horse and buggy days of the late nineteenth century.” He was right. Waller went on to say that “Mississippi was standing still”, and the “political power was vested in the legislature, whose members were not term-limited….” He said that “a small group of powerful legislators…in combination with the social and business leadership of the state, formed a ruling elite that determined public policy and perpetuated the racial traditions that had been in place since Reconstruction.” He also noted that Mississippi’s Constitution of 1890 “did not allow the Governor to succeed himself and strictly limited the authority of the executive branch….” He might have added that in 1967, Mississippi was still virtually a “one party state” although Republican Rubel Phillips (the first Republican to run for Governor since Reconstruction) ran unsuccessfully for Governor in the general election that year.

As we know, John Bell Williams was elected Governor of Mississippi in 1967, and Bill Waller finished fifth in the Democratic Primary, behind William Winter, Jimmy Swan, and former Governor Ross Barnett. But Waller ran again in 1971 and this time was elected Governor in an upset victory over Lieutenant Governor Charles Sullivan in the Democratic Primary and a victory over independent Charles Evers in the general election. In his 1971 campaign, Waller again attacked the “old guard” and called them “the Capitol Street Gang”.

I agree with those who say that Bill Waller was a transitional figure in Mississippi politics who, as a candidate, began the movement away from the oppressive, and racist politics of the past, and introduced modern campaign techniques into Mississippi statewide politics. He also was unquestionably a courageous public servant with great vision and leadership skills who, although clearly a conservative, bucked the tide of public opinion at the time and showed his respect for the rule of law by prosecuting Byron De La Beckwith on two occasions for the murder of Medgar Evers. As we know, both prosecutions ended in a mistrial.

Before he ran for Governor in 1967, Bill Waller served with distinction as the District Attorney for Hinds, Madison and Yazoo Counties. Joe Fancher, Jr., of Canton, Waller’s longtime friend, was Bill’s statewide campaign manager when he made his 1967 race. I returned to Canton from the Army in 1966 and was elected Madison County Attorney in a special election. Therefore, I had the good fortune to assist and serve under District Attorney Bill Waller for about one year while he was gearing up to run for Governor. In those days, the District Attorney’s job was part-time, and Waller was being paid approximately $8,500.00 per year. He did have assistants, however, and the county attorneys also assisted him in Madison and Yazoo Counties. As a twenty-seven year-old boy, I had great fun and learned a lot while working for a hard-charging district attorney who was about to run for Governor. Five years later, I was elected the district attorney for Rankin and Madison Counties and fondly remember the thrill of introducing Waller at a big rally at the Canton Courthouse when he was running for Governor in 1971.

I attended Bill Waller’s funeral last Saturday, December 3, 2011, at the First Baptist Church in Jackson. It was an upbeat, dignified and truly grand affair that was attended by past governors and many, many present and past state officials, friends and former Waller staff members. The Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court, Bill Waller, Jr., spoke eloquently of his father and his mother and gave, perhaps, the finest speech of his life. His words rang true in capturing the essence of his father’s life. Also, the distinguished historian, David Sansing, gave a moving account of Governor Waller’s accomplishments, while also paying tribute to the First Lady, Carroll Waller, and rightly credited her with saving and restoring the historic Governor’s Mansion for future generations.

While I was never an insider in the Waller Administration or a close personal confidant or friend, I always admired Bill Waller, his intellect, and his work ethic. He was a great Governor, a great lawyer, and, in the end, was recognized as a great statesman. R.I.P.

DOES THE GOP WIN BY BRUISING?

2011-11-03T14:18:00.000-07:00

The 2011 statewide elections come to an end here in Mississippi on November 8. On that date, political pundits predict that Mississippians will elect Republican Phil Bryant to succeed Haley Barbour as Governor of Mississippi and will elect Republicans to most of the eight statewide elective offices in state government. The jury is still out on whether Republicans will dominate the State Legislature and elect a Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives. Still, there is no doubt that the two-party system in the State Legislature is alive and well, which bodes well for the success of the programs of the new Bryant Administration, unless Republican elected officials become divided and fall into bickering among themselves. That possibility is real but would be unwise for all concerned. I predict that the principals involved will ignore the advice of some of their consultants and campaign workers (who, for personal gain, would like to see such divisions occur) and will work together on most issues. I believe they will heed the warning of Benjamin Franklin, who famously warned his fellow revolutionaries over 200 years ago that “either we hang together or we will hang separately.” Most Republicans realize that the Democrats are not dead in Mississippi. They are just, for the most part, currently in hibernation or hopelessly divided among themselves.

On the national level, however, the Democrats are not in hibernation, and the Republicans are definitely not hanging together. Some pundits, such as Peggy Noonan, celebrate the brutal debates that have recently taken place between the Republican candidates for President. In her recent article in the October 22, 2011, edition of the Wall Street Journal (“The GOP Wins by Bruising”), Ms. Noonan reports that all of the Republican debates have been “a real plus for the GOP”, because “they’ve made the Republican Party look like the alive party. There’s been jousting and predictable disagreement, but there has also been substance.” She may be right, but I do not think so.

I tend to agree with the thesis of an editorial first written in the September 23, 2011, online edition of Investors Business Daily: “Memo to GOP: The Foe Is Obama, not Perry.” At that time, Texas Governor Rick Perry was riding high in the polls, which prompted his Republican opponents to vehemently attack him in the ensuing debates. After one of them, IBD simply stated: “Republicans need to keep their eye on the prize. The target for 2012 is not Santorum, Cain, Bachman, Romney or Perry. It’s the current White House occupant…. Lost in the brouhaha over tuition for illegal aliens and mandated vaccines is the fact that we simply can’t afford four more years of President Obama.”

All Republicans agree that the debates may be necessary to determine which candidates do not have the “stamina” necessary to be President and thus should be “weeded out.” Still, IBD counsels that instead of focusing on whether one of the candidates was wise to mandate through an executive order the use of a vaccine to combat cervical cancer, we should “focus on the damage ObamaCare has done and will do to the creation of vaccines, to medical innovation and to what still remains the best health care system in the world. It’s Obama who’s destroying the country, not the candidates in Orlando. It is he who taxes too much, regulates too much, spends too much and imposes job-killing mandates through his EPA….”

I say we have had enough of the GOP “circular firing squad.” While I recognize that most of our very fine field of Presidential candidates will not take this advice, I believe that if it were taken by one of the major candidates, that candidate would be well received.

ARE OUR YOUNG PEOPLE HISTORICALLY ILLITERATE?

2011-10-06T11:51:00.000-07:00

Americans are now engaging in the opening stages of a great national debate as to who we want to elect as the next President of the United States in 2012. As we go through this process, the recent words of a renowned historian resonate in my mind: “We are raising young people who are, by and large, historically illiterate.” So said the twice-Pulitzer Prize winning author, David McCullough, as quoted in the June 18, 2011, edition of the Wall Street Journal. “History is a source of strength” he said. “It sets higher standards for all of us.”

McCullough, who wrote the highly acclaimed biographies of John Adams and Harry Truman, is correct. In June, 2011, the U. S. Department of Education released its 2010 National Assessment of Economic Progress. The report found that only 12% of high school seniors have a firm grasp of our nation’s history, and only 2% understand the significance of Brown v. Board of Education.

As we go through the process of electing our next President, it is obvious that a firm grasp of American History, and the principles upon which our nation was founded, are essential to voters who want to pick the candidate for President who is best suited to preserve the principles of government that made our country great. Furthermore, a basic understanding of the differing forms and philosophies of government that have evolved throughout history in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, based upon the teachings of those who advocated non-democratic, communist, and socialist forms of government, would be very helpful to voters trying to make the right presidential choice. Armed with such knowledge, we could compare the arguments of the candidates and judge how their positions, hopes and dreams for America stack up with the ideals of those political thinkers of yesteryear.

McCullough tells us part of the problem is that too often teachers with a degree in education are assigned to teach history, about which they know little or nothing. The great teachers, according to McCullough, love what they are teaching. “[Y]ou can’t love something you don’t know, anymore than you can love someone you don’t know.”

McCullough is critical of teaching history in categories – “women’s history, African American history, environmental history. . .”, because “. . . many of the students have no sense of chronology. They have no idea what followed what.” He also says that many history textbooks “are so politically correct as to be comical. Very minor characters that are currently fashionable are given considerable space whereas people of major consequence farther back (such as, say, Thomas Edison) are given very little space or none at all.”

Still, McCullough believes teachers “are the most important people in society. . .” and need more pay and more appreciation from all of us. “It’s not their fault”, he says that our children are ignorant. “It’s our fault. . . . I mean the parents and grandparents of the oncoming generation. We have to talk about history, talk about the books we love, the biographies and histories. . . . We should take our children to historic places. Go to Gettysburg. Go to the Capitol. . . . If you play the part of Abigail Adams or Johnny Appleseed in a fourth-grade play, you are never going to forget it as long as you live.”

Hopefully, we will take McCullough’s comments to heart if we want to preserve America, as we know it, for future generations. And as we think about and study the candidates from which we must choose new leaders in upcoming national elections, we should be trying to determine which one of them has the ability and temperament to preserve the principles of government that made America the light of the world and a beacon of hope for people everywhere. Which candidate can inspire us to self-sacrifice in hard times and unite us as Americans, rather than trying to separate us into special interest groups who have tribal loyalties first and foremost? That candidate, at the end of the day and when the dust settles, will get my vote.

REAGAN’S ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT

2011-09-01T12:20:00.000-07:00

“For Ronald Reagan, the easy waiting game that had lasted through most of 1975, the luxury of sitting back and letting Jerry Ford take all the heat, was over. On the morning of Thursday, November 20, he strode before a battery of microphones and television cameras at the National Press Club and staked out his position as the Gentleman Caller of Republican politics, the outsider with clean hands, the savior come to Washington to purify the waters.

‘Our nation’s capital’, he said, ‘has become the seat of a buddy system that functions for its own benefit – increasingly insensitive to the needs of the American worker who supports it with his taxes. Today it is difficult to find leaders who are independent of the forces that have brought us our problems – the Congress, the bureaucracy, the lobbyists, big business and big labor.’

Reagan did not list [President] Gerald Ford as a member of the buddy system. Nor would he single out his opponent for any other criticism. Instead, as he had done in his two gubernatorial campaigns, Reagan pledged to honor California’s ‘Eleventh Commandment’ that said ‘Thou shall not speak ill of any fellow Republican’.”

So wrote the journalist, Jules Witcover, in his lengthy book, MARATHON, THE PURSUIT OF THE PRESIDENCY 1972-1976. Much has been written about the election contest in which Democrat Jimmy Carter ultimately defeated incumbent Republican President Gerald Ford (who had been appointed Vice-President by his predecessor, Richard Nixon, and ascended to the Presidency when Nixon resigned). However, Witcover’s MARATHON remains the standard.

The great sub-plot of Witcover’s historical account of the events of 1972-1976, of course, centered around the epic struggle between President Ford and Governor Ronald Reagan of California, in which the conservative Reagan sought to unseat a more moderate Gerald Ford by denying a sitting President the nomination of his own party at the Republican National Convention of 1976. As most Mississippi Republicans know, the Mississippi delegation at Kansas City, although badly split, played an important role at the 1976 convention in which Ford was ultimately nominated with 1187 delegates to Reagan’s 1070. Ronald Reagan, as we also know, went on to capture the Republican nomination four years later, defeat President Jimmy Carter, and he is now an icon of the Republican Party faithful. However, the scars remain from that monumental struggle in 1976 within the ranks of the Republican Party even today.

On the national stage today, we see those seeking the Republican nomination for President regularly taking shots at each other in violation of the Eleventh Commandment, although almost all of them speak of Ronald Reagan with reverence. Likewise, Republicans in Mississippi have recently gone through several bitter primary elections (particularly in the Lieutenant Governor’s race), hopefully on our way to victory in the general election in November, 2011. During those primary elections, Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment was also cast aside with abandon, with our candidates boldly attacking the integrity of their Republican opponents and questioning their fitness to hold public office.

As a very vocal proponent of the view that bitter and deeply personal primary fights weaken the Republican Party and cause permanent divisions that ultimately lead to Democratic victories, I decided to go back and review how President Ford and Governor Reagan conducted themselves in their marathon contest in 1976, in which the charismatic California Governor almost unseated his fellow Republican, a sitting President. My review shows that Reagan, who had for years been attacking Washington in support of his arguments that we should throw the Democratic rascals out, first attempted to reshape his anti-Washington theme as an attack on the status quo, without attacking President Ford personally, in order to avoid violating the Eleventh Commandment. Ford countered, upon the advice of his aides, by attacking Reagan with local press releases and surrogates leading up to the New Hampshire primary, thus keeping Ford “out of the cross fire” and looking Presidential.

As the campaign progressed, the Ford camp increasingly attempted to portray Reagan as “the new Barry Goldwater on Social Security”. The President also exercised the power of his incumbency on the campaign trail by promising numerous pork barrell plums such as new hospitals, missile contracts or mass transit programs in key states. He also “invited local [Florida] television anchormen to Washington for Oval Office interviews – the weekend before the Florida primary”.

Finding himself on the defensive, and initially insisting that he was merely challenging the President’s policies and not breaking with his Eleventh Commandment pledge, Reagan began to attack Ford’s foreign policy initiatives, charging that neither the President nor Secretary of State Henry Kissenger had shown “the vision nor the leadership necessary to halt and reverse the diplomatic and military decline of the United States.” He attacked Ford’s efforts for détente with the Soviet Union and the President’s apparent desire to turn over ownership of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians – under the leadership of “Panama’s military dictator, Fidel Castro’s good friend, General Omar Torrijos [Herrera]”. From the political stump, Reagan delivered these memorable lines: “when it comes to the canal, we built it, we paid for it, it’s ours, and we should tell Torrijos and company that we are going to keep it.” He added: “Under Messrs. Kissenger and Ford this nation has become number two in military power in a world where it is dangerous – if not fatal – to be second best.” Finally, paying his respects to Ford’s excessive political use of his incumbency, Reagan stated off the cuff at a rally in North Carolina: “If he comes here with the same list of goodies as he did in Florida . . . the band won’t know whether to play ‘Hail to the Chief’ or ‘Santa Claus is Coming to Town.”

In the course of the heated Republican Presidential primary elections of 1976, both Reagan and Ford ultimately abandoned the Eleventh Commandment in their pursuit of victory. Their justification was that they had to defend themselves against unfair attacks from their opponent. Still, the scars within the party remain. Similar scars will remain for a while among Mississippi Republicans in the aftermath of our August, 2011 Republican primaries here in the Magnolia State. Hopefully, we will be wise enough to realize that a divided party whose members are more interested in fighting among themselves than in fighting Democrats, is a sure recipé for defeat – sooner or later. Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment remains the standard in Republican politics but will be followed only if all candidates in a Republican primary agree to abide by it. They will agree to abide by it only if Republican voters demand it.

Eminent Domain

2011-08-04T06:52:00.001-07:00

Unless Leland Speed, the Executive Director of the Mississippi Development Authority (“MDA”), has his way, Mississippi voters will decide on election day, November 2, 2011, whether Mississippi’s Constitution of 1890 should be “amended to state that property seized through eminent domain cannot be given to any person, non-governmental entity, public-private partnership, corporation, or other business entity, for 10 years.” (Source: Clarion Ledger, June 17, 2011). Nearly 120,000 Mississippi voters signed petitions through the state’s ballot initiative process to get the issue on the ballot in November at the time of the state’s 2011 general elections; and Secretary of State Delbert Hoseman has stated that. . . “[b]y state law, I am required, and I intend, to place the initiative on the ballot unless otherwise ordered to do so by the Supreme Court. . . .”

Mr. Speed’s lawsuit challenges the legality of ballot initiative on the grounds that it would unconstitutionally affect the Mississippi Constitution’s Bill of Rights; “gut state economic development efforts”; and otherwise hamper the development of large future projects such as the Nissan and Toyota automotive plants. Others, including the Mississippi Farm Bureau, contend that since the Governor (citing economic development concerns) previously vetoed legislation designed to prevent eminent domain for economic development, the current ballot initiative is the best available way to stop the State from taking people’s homes and private property for the benefit of speculative economic developers of all types. They believe that private property rights are sacrosanct and cite, among other authorities, the “takings clause” of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Of The United States (written by James Madison), which mandates that private property may only be taken by the government for “public use” (and then only for just compensation), rather than for a “public purpose” or a “public benefit”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently deferred to the states to make their own decisions as to what is a “public use” for eminent domain purposes. On a number of occasions the Court has allowed individual states to make expansive interpretations of eminent domain authority. For example, in the 2005 case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, the Court affirmed by a 5-4 decision the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property and transfer it for one dollar per year to a private developer who promised a luxury hotel, upscale condominiums, new office buildings, and a projected $1.2 million in tax revenues.

It is noteworthy that in its Kelo decision affirming an expansive interpretation of the term “public use”, the four liberals on the Supreme Court were joined by the more moderate Justice Kennedy in order to reach a majority decision. The four conservatives on the Court, including Justices Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O’Connor, vigorously dissented, arguing that valuable and sacrosanct private property rights had been unconstitutionally taken by the government for speculative purposes. It is further noteworthy that the proposed redevelopment in New London, the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure despite an expenditure of over $80 million of public funds. As of June, 2011, the property remained vacant.

The Kelo decision in 2005 inspired a huge public outcry that governmental eminent domain powers have become too broad; and several states enacted legislation that further defined “public use” and restricted the power of eminent domain. According to the Jackson Clarion Ledger, Mississippi is now one of only seven states that have not changed their property rights laws since the Kelo decision.

The power of government to take private real or personal property has always existed in the United States, but, in my opinion, should be restricted only to condemnation for true public uses, such as roads, fire stations, schools, and other public building. As things now stand in Mississippi, and as Justice O’Conner stated in her dissenting opinion in the Kelo decision, “[t]he specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

If Mississippians are allowed to vote on the issue in November, we will have within our grasp the power to reverse Justice O’Conner’s assessment of the status of eminent domain law in our state. We will have the opportunity to reinstate traditional eminent domain powers in Mississippi’ and restore the traditional protections written into the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution by James Madison for the benefit of all Americans, which states:

“No person shall. . . be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

TATE REEVES V. BILLY HEWES

2011-07-07T06:34:00.001-07:00

The statewide political season is well underway here in Mississippi and the primary elections will be held on August 2, 2011, just about 30 days from now. Outsiders need to know that we have eight statewide officeholders who are elected by the people: (1) Governor; (2) Lieutenant Governor; (3) Secretary of State. (4) Attorney General; (5) Treasurer; (6) Auditor; (7) Insurance Commissioner; and (8) Commissioner of Agriculture. All but the Attorney General are presently Republicans.

Of all of the Republican Primary races, the race between Tate Reeves and Billy Hewes to succeed Phil Bryant as Lieutenant Governor (he is running for Governor to succeed Haley Barbour) has now clearly taken center stage and has incredibly eclipsed the Governor’s race in the minds of Republican voters. I believe there are three or more reasons for this phenomenon: (1) the Governor’s race has so far been a low-key affair; (2) there are no Democrats running for Lieutenant Governor for the first time in my memory; and (3) the Lieutenant Governor’s office is a very powerful position that can directly influence the success or failure of not only individual pieces of legislation but an entire legislative agenda as well. In this situation, the Republican Primary race for Lieutenant Governor is “winner take all” in August and only those voting in the Republican Primary will decide the winner. What a great day to be a Republican in Mississippi.

When one adds to the equation that both Tate Reeves ( a two-term state Treasurer ) and Billy Hewes ( the President Pro Tempore of the State Senate ) are well qualified by experience, are proven “vote-getters”; and both know how to raise money, it is no surprise that this race has proven to be “hotter than a pepper sprout”, rivaling in intensity the 95 – 100 degree heat that we Mississippians have been enduring for most of the past month. Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment (“Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican”) has become a casualty in this race, and both sides, with the assistance of their well-paid consultants, have begun running attack ads on each other.

In my opinion, most Mississippi Republicans have not made up their minds on the Lieutenant Governor’s race. They are still waiting for the candidates to address important issues that will directly affect their lives AND the future of the Republican movement in Mississippi. As difficult as it is for some media pundits to understand, most Mississippi Republicans look at a race like this to determine which candidate can best promote Republican principles in the years ahead. Most subscribe to the view that the Republican philosophy, as best described by Ronald Reagan, is best for our state and nation; and the candidate that can best articulate and promote that philosophy will win. As Haley Barbour said in a speech when we celebrated the retirement of the debt on the State Party Headquarters in Jackson, “ Governors come and go. The Party goes on forever.” Haley was right and the same thing can be said for Lieutenant Governors.

This Lieutenant Governor’s race, therefore, should not be about personalities, but should be about who can best promote Ronald Reagan’s concept of government: (1) that government is best that governs least; (2) hard work is the key to success in life; (3) we are not victims but each of us is responsible for our own actions; and (4) we in America and Mississippi are not just a bunch of special interest groups, but we are one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Never in modern Mississippi history have Mississippi Republicans had such a unique opportunity as they have in this race: the opportunity to elect the number two officeholder in the state with only Republicans voting. It is our responsibility not to blow this opportunity. We must get it right.

To be sure, the two candidates can help the party faithful make up their minds in the Lieutenant Governor’s race by forthrightly stating their positions on the various ballot initiatives that the voters will be called upon to decide on November 8, 2011, (when Democrats will be allowed to vote with us ). Where do Tate and Billy stand, for example on voter ID? Where do they stand on early voting, and on voting by convicted felons who have served their time? Where do they stand on the ballot initiative designed to strengthen our state’s immigration laws? And what penalties, if any, should businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants receive?

Where do the candidates stand on the initiative designed to strengthen our eminent domain laws, protect private property rights, and discourage using the condemnation process to aid land developers who are out to make a profit? Or do they support the recent lawsuit which seeks to take the initiative off the ballot and favors taking private property for economic development purposes if there is a likelihood that the takeover would result in more jobs for Mississippians? Where do the candidates stand on the “personhood” initiative that would have the voters make a statement on when life begins.

Finally, Republicans need to know where the candidates stand on working with the new Republican Governor who will likely be elected on November 8, 2011. Will the new Lieutenant Governor work with the new Governor and help give the new Governor a support group to help him get his programs through? Or will the new Lieutenant Governor view himself as a competitor of the new Governor and lead us back to the days of yesteryear, when legislators worked overtime to weaken the Governor’s power after a “honeymoon period” and bring him to heel at the end of his term? The Governor and the Lieutenant Governor had big problems during the Fordice Administration. We do not need for that to happen again.

Haley Barbour has been a successful Governor not only because of his extraordinary political skills, but also because we have had a united Republican Party and the fact that the two-party system has come of age in the legislature during the past ten years. Haley had a strong support group in the legislature that was willing to work with him as a team to get his programs enacted into law. In turn, he helped the Republican legislators and supported them in the things they wanted to do.

Mississippi Republicans are interested in the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor working together. They are definitely NOT interested in returning to the days when the battles in state government centered on fights between the Governor and the legislature. They want the fight to be between Democrats and Republicans over the great issues of the day, like medicaid, education, crime, or efficiency in government. To repeat, Republicans are not interested in fights between branches of government. They know that such battles divide us and work to the advantage of the Democrats.

Tate and Billy need to tell us in clear and highly publicized terms where they stand on these important issues and where they stand on Reagan’s philosophy of government. Maybe they have already told us and I just have not been listening. If so, I would wager that a large number of Mississippi Republicans haven’t been listening either, but want to hear something else from the candidates on these matters. When they do, Mississippi Republicans will be ready to make a choice.

MEMORIAL DAY REMEMBRANCES

2011-06-03T09:07:00.000-07:00

Although Memorial Day, May 30, 2011, in Mississippi marks the beginning of the summer vacation and the statewide election season which will be held, first in the August primaries and later in the November general elections, many if not most of us here in the Magnolia State commemorate on this Memorial Day weekend our fallen soldiers in one way or another. Wikipedia reminds us that Memorial Day “is a United States federal holiday observed on the last Monday of May.”

The first recorded observance of the holiday (then known as “Decoration Day”) was in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1865, in remembrance of the fallen Union soldiers of the Civil War. Memorial Day was later extended after World War I (“The War to End All Wars”) to honor all U. S. Service members who had died while in military service.

In America, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was correct when it said that on Memorial Day, we think of “Boy Scouts. Veterans. Relatives. Just Plain Patriots. Cemeteries in sunshine and shade. Bundles of flags. Hushed tones. Backs bent to the task. Old soldiers’ graves no longer plain but red, white and blue every one. Remembrance, one soldier, flier, marine and sailor at a time.”

On Memorial Day, we do not heed the words once uttered by General Douglas McArthur to an adoring U. S. Congress: “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” The Post-Gazette correctly tells us that “Old soldiers do die, not fade way. Never fade away, not in memory, not while a flag remains…”

In America, we often celebrate Memorial Day around swimming pools, games, enjoying Aunt Bess’ potato salad. We see “Dad in an apron at the grill, hot dogs, hamburgers, popcorn, smiles, the blessing of peace.” But in Afghanistan, the Associated Press tells us that U. S. troops paused on this day to remember the fallen in Memorial Day services as the war, nearly a decade old after the September 11, 2001 attacks, after more than 1400 U. S. soldiers killed in combat, trudges on.

In flag-raising ceremonies at dawn on this day, Brig. Gen. Lewis A. Craparotta, the commander of the Marine Division in one of Afghanistan’s southern provinces near Pakistan, stated: “We reflect today on those that have gone before us. We reflect on their service and their sacrifice on behalf of our great nation. We should also remember those serving today who embody that same commitment of service and sacrifice. They are committed to something greater than themselves and they muster the physical and moral courage to accomplish extraordinary feats in battle.” If you have ever served in the military, you know that the General speaks the truth.

According to the AP, the remembrance ceremony in Afghanistan caused some to reflect on “sharp pangs of loss”, like Maj. Erica Iverson, 33, of South Dakota, who once served as a casualty assistance officer after the death of Staff Sgt. Adam Dickmyer of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. She “recounted how Dickmyer’s mother fell off her chair in grief when her son’s body returned to the U.S. His widow chased after the casket, screaming: “Don’t leave me!” “His wife has an empty house” Iverson said. “His entire unit came home today, and he didn’t come with them.”

It is said that the worst stress during times of war is that of family members waiting at home for their loved ones to return. Therefore, as the sun sets on this Memorial Day in 95º heat here in the Magnolia State, we say God bless this land of the free. God bless those served and sacrificed (and those who are still serving and sacrificing) to keep it free. Never let them fade away, not while a flag remains.

WHO IS JOHN GALT?

2011-05-05T13:54:00.000-07:00

This past week, my wife and I went to the movies and saw “Atlas Shrugged – Part One” which opened in Mississippi on “tax day”, April 15, 2011. Beverly and I seldom go to the movies anymore, but this was one I did not want to miss. I was not disappointed.

John Galt is the shadowy figure and ultimate hero of the novel, “Atlas Shrugged”, and his name is mentioned, again and again throughout the first part of the book, by numerous characters who ask the rhetorical question: “Who is John Galt?” Published in 1957, “Atlas Shrugged” tells the story of Dagney Taggert, a successful businesswoman who attempts to keep her great railroad company afloat by changing with the times and replacing the old and unsafe rail lines on her railroad system with new steel alloy lines developed by another creative entrepreneur, Hank Rearden, owner of one of the great steel companies in America. In the book and movie, Dagney and Hank demonstrate that Rearden metal is safe for public use, despite fierce opposition from her competitors and warnings of disaster by government regulators. At that point, the future looks bright for the Taggart Railroad Company and Rearden Steel. However, the government steps in and announces that the Taggert-Rearden partnership is “unfair” to other steel producers, and Congress passes a law called the “Equalization of Opportunity Act”, which regulates how many businesses an individual may own. As the story unfolds, Dagney begins to notice that many of her fellow entrepreneurs who are producing useful goods and services begin to disappear, often leaving behind a note saying simply: “Who is John Galt?” She renames her railroad “The John Galt Line”.

In a recent review of “Atlas Shrugged – Part I”, conservative columnist Cal Thomas compared the storyline of the book and the movie to our present-day circumstances: “In an age where overspending, overreaching, wire tapping and over-regulating government increasingly strangles the private sector, robbing us of our liberties and transforms the country into the model of a socialist state, Rand’s story reminds us how far ahead of her time she was and just how dangerous a time we live in now.” Indeed, liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, in the newspaper’s April 16, 2011 edition, seemed to partially agree with Thomas when she wrote: “It was Ayn Rand’s nightmare: The president who gave hundreds of billions in hand-outs to homeowners, banks, car executives and various others she would have labeled ‘moochers’ was explaining his vision of why America is great. ‘It’s not the size of our skyscrapers,’ President Obama told cheering fans at a late-night rally Thursday at Chicago’s Navy Pier. ‘It’s not the size of our G.D.P.’ It’s not even just because we’re individuals, he said, adding, ‘We also have this idea that we’re all in this together, that we look out for one another, that I am my brother’s keeper.”

Ayn Rand’s philosophy has had great appeal to many of America’s most prominent public figures, including Alan Greenspan, the longtime Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and, more recently, young U. S. Representative Paul Ryan, the author of the recent Republican Congressional budget proposal, who credits Rand as “the reason I got involved in public service.”

In 2010, Ryan directed every member of his staff to read “Atlas Shrugged”. Greenspan describes Rand’s philosophy as “…one that emphasized reason, individualism, and enlightened self-interest. Later she named it objectivism; today, she would be called a libertarian.”

Cal Thomas writes that “Ayn Rand is not for everybody.” It is true that her philosophy of objectivism knows no God and does not adhere to the basic rights espoused by Thomas Jefferson, to which each American is entitled and are “endowed by our creator.” Still, her powerful argument against a collectivist society rings clear to us today. As stated on the cover jacket of the novel in 1957,

“You must be prepared, when you read this novel, to check every premise at the root of your convictions. This is a mystery story, not about the murder of a man’s body, but about the murder – and rebirth – of man’s spirit. It is a philosophical revolution, told in the form of an action thriller of violent events, a ruthlessly brilliant plot structure and an irresistible suspense. Do you say this is impossible? Well, that is the first of your premises to check.”

Who is John Galt? Go see the movie.

SCOTT WALKER AND THE WISCONSIN REPUBLICANS

2011-04-07T07:38:00.000-07:00

Until a year or so ago, few national reporters were paying attention to the activities of Wisconsin’s Republican elected officials. However, in 2011, it appears that the Badger State (which, in recent years, has gone Democratic in presidential elections and was the home of Senator Robert “fighting Bob” LaFollette, the progressive legend who ran for President in the early 1900s to the left of Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt) has suddenly become the center of the GOP universe and has produced three Republican leaders that are making a difference in three unique ways.

First, there is Congressman Paul Ryan, who, according to Paul Gigot of the WALL STREET JOURNAL, “. . . doesn’t look like the menacing sort. He’s amiable in a familiar Midwestern way . . . and he uses words like “gosh.” (February 19, 2011 edition). Yet the Democrats refer to him in almost daily press releases as “the evil genius, the cruel and mad budget cutter who threatens grandma’s health care, granddad’s retirement, and the entitlement state as we know it.” Then, there is Reince Priebus, the former Chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party, who led his party to unprecedented gains in the state legislature and the successful defeat of prominent U.S. Senator Russ Feingold in Wisconsin’s 2010 state and congressional elections. Priebus recently replaced Michael Steele as the Chairman of the debt-ridden Republican National Committee.

The new Chairman recently attended a fund-raiser in Jackson, Mississippi, where he announced that the RNC would not only put its financial house in order but would embark on a crusade to “save the country” in 2012. I was impressed with his earnest and sincere demeanor on that occasion and believe that he means what he says.

Finally, of course, we have newly-elected Governor Scott Walker, a 43-year-old former county executive, who, according to Robert Costa in his March 21, 2011, NATIONAL REVIEW article, is compared by protestors to Adolph Hitler, Hosni Mubarek, and Darth Vader. On the other hand, national syndicated columnist George Will has observed that Governor Walker’s compelling and unflinching arguments for fiscal prudence in Wisconsin state government “called up the ghosts of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, who so famously tangled with union bosses three decades ago.” In fact, Wisconsin’s legislative fight over the budget, and the accompanying outcry from state employees’ unions has emerged as “the definitive state-level budget battle in the Age of Obama.” Walker is suddenly a nationally recognized fiscal hawk and, to many Republicans, a hero. His actions in Wisconsin have strengthened the resolve of Republican leaders in several other states who are dealing with union-fueled uprisings as they grapple with budget gaps and fiscal uncertainty.

Walker’s plan in Wisconsin asked state employees (who contribute generously to the campaigns of friendly legislators responsible for their funding) to contribute 5.8 percent of their salaries toward their pensions and pay 12.6 percent of their health premiums. He also called for legislation limiting collective bargaining for most government employees to wages alone (excluding pensions and other benefits). The resulting reaction from the left was immediate and dramatic.

Jill Bakken, a spokeswoman for the American Federation of Teachers in Wisconsin, opined, “State employees are shocked and bewildered about how 50 years of labor peace can be unraveled by a governor who has been in office for six weeks.” Her fellow Democrats quickly mobilized and three days later, 20,000 protestors converged on the state capitol grounds. Teachers abandoned their schools in protest and schools were shut down across the state. “We are the mighty teachers” one group proclaimed. “We teach the children,” roared another. All 14 Democrat state senators left the state in order to prevent a quorum of Senators being present to consider the Governor’s proposals. Meanwhile, upwards of 70,000 protestors attended one rally at the capitol over the weekend. Samuel “Joe the Plummer” Wurzelbacher also appeared at that rally in support of the Governor. “Recall them all,” he said.

The drama in Wisconsin is not over. The budget battle is now in the courts and “recall” petitions are circulating all over Wisconsin, asking that both Democrats and Republicans relinquish their legislative posts. The unions are even mobilizing their forces to defeat an incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court Judge in his re-election bid, who they fear might vote against them when the budget battle (now pending in the state’s trial courts) reaches the high court.

What is happening in Wisconsin is, to some extent, foreign to what we are used to in Mississippi, where collective bargaining by state employees is not allowed and “right-to-work” laws are embedded in the state constitution. Meanwhile, in the Badger State, Costa reports that Governor Walker “shrugs off” the cries of the protestors. “These tens of thousands of protestors have the right to be heard,” he says. “But there are 5.5 million people in this state, and those taxpayers have a right to be heard. I, for one, am not going to let the protestors overshadow, or shout out, the interest of the state’s taxpayers. And I believe they are with us in trying to balance this budget.”

My goodness. That does sound like Reagan and Thatcher.

RONALD REAGAN AT 100

2011-03-03T08:40:00.000-08:00

February was the month in which we celebrated Ronald Reagan’s one hundredth birthday and remembered that he left us almost seven years ago. It is fascinating to me how this great man, who was once excoriated by the Democrats and some moderate Republicans as a “right-wing fanatic”, and an “amiable dunce”, is suddenly being transformed and accepted by his former tormentors as a political giant.

Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited and published Reagan’s diaries in 2007, linked the Gipper, a former Democrat, to his original political hero, President Franklin Roosevelt. “People really used to loathe FDR, and now everybody considers him a great president”, said Brinkley, adding: “We in America like winners. FDR won World War II. And Ronald Reagan, it is thought, won the Cold War. That’s hard to overcome. It transcends politics.”

Even President Obama and TIME magazine have gotten in on the act (no pun intended) when Reagan’s superimposed image was seen on the cover of TIME with his arm around the current President. “If Obama has bounced back from the drubbing his party took at the polls last November”, wrote historian Richard Norton Smith in the magazine, “it is in no small measure because he has been acting more Reaganesque as of late.” Note that Smith emphasizes “acting” but not “governing”.

It was reported by the POLITICO that President Obama has recently been praising Reagan’s “faith in the American promise” and carries around with him on his travels Lou Cannon’s biography of Reagan for bedtime reading. “He tapped in to what people were already feeling, which is, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing”, Obama said. Really?

In a poll released this month and taken to coincide with Presidents’ Day, Gallup asked 1015 adults to name the president they regard as the greatest in history. Ronald Reagan finished first with 19 percent, followed by Abraham Lincoln at 14 percent and Bill Clinton at 13 percent. Even taking into account that recent presidents tend to dominate the list (in part because their names are the easiest to remember and also because partisan leanings also influence people’s choices), the results are still startling to me. One of three presidents – Lincoln, Reagan or Kennedy – has been on top the past 12 years. Franklin Roosevelt finished sixth, Obama finished seventh, and George W. Bush finished tenth.

In an article entitled “Reagan’s True Legacy” in REAL CLEAR POLITICS dated February 2, 2011, Ed Feulner, the President of the Heritage Foundation, correctly points out that “what passes as praise of Reagan today is veiled criticism.” In other words, Reagan is hailed by Democrats as a “great communicator” but not for his accomplishments or his philosophy. They believe that by studying his methods, perhaps some of the “Reagan magic” will rub off on their liberal policies that have been such a hard sell.

Feulner says this transparent attempt to dress up the liberal agenda in Reaganesque terms is “condescending nonsense”. It was not just Reagan’s optimistic style that endeared him to millions of Americans, it was also (and primarily) because he articulated their most cherished beliefs. He said, “Taxes are too high – let’s cut them. Inflation is too high – let’s tame it. The Cold War can be won, not managed . . . let’s do it.” In the process, Reagan created an economic miracle and our nation experienced its longest peacetime expansion in history. He beefed up the military, declared it was “Morning in America”, and brought the Soviets to their knees without firing a shot.

I agree with Feulner that only a presidential candidate in 2012 who agrees with Reagan’s farewell address (and governs accordingly if elected) can be considered the Gipper’s true heir:

“ ‘We the people’ tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us. ‘We

the people’ are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide

where it should go, and by what route, and how fast.”

Happy Birthday, Mr. President. R. I. P.

HALEY AT CPAC

2011-02-14T13:42:00.000-08:00

I thought Haley Barbour acquitted himself well on Saturday, February 12, 2011, at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) when he delivered a thoughtful speech in Washington to the large annual gathering of conservative activists. Predictably, he stated at CPAC (and on the next day on Fox News Sunday) that he was exploring the possibility of running for President of the United States; but he also showed me a glimpse of what his message would be if he does take the plunge.

Basically, Haley stated that the country is in deep trouble and is crying for a new leader. “The main thing is electing a Republican President”, he said. “We cannot put America on the right track until we elect a Republican President in 2012 and a Republican Senate to join the Republican House.”

While most other potential presidential candidates were vague at CPAC (and on the next day’s talk shows) on how to cut spending, POLITICO correctly observed that Haley “spent considerable time explaining how he had governed as a conservative and not just given lip-service to small-government principles.” He explained to the national audience (carried on C-SPAN) how Mississippi eliminated its $720 million budget short-fall in two years without raising anyone’s taxes; and how he found “cost savings in Medicaid” over the objections of the usual suspects - the “liberal media elite”.

In concluding his remarks on fiscal issues, Barbour made a statement which, to me, reflected a clear understanding of the fiscal problems that the next President will face after 2012: “you can save money on entitlements, you just gotta have the will to do it.”

In his speech, Haley also made an appeal to social conservatives by noting that “Mississippi [is] the safest state in America for an unborn child. And he also paid his respects to the Tea Party movement by stating that Tea Partiers are concerned about the same policy issues that Republican volunteers and leaders are concerned about. “Rather than divide us” Barbour said, “these are the issues that unite us, unite us as conservatives, unite us as Republicans and unite us as Americans.”

Some, like Walter Shapiro of POLITICS DAILY, thought Haley’s speech was “clunky” and “boring”, while praising an equally “boring” speech by Indiana Governor, Mitch Daniels, as an “intellectually compelling call to arms against the red-ink forces of the nationals debt” which required “listening rather than pep-rally applause.” Others, like the GOP strategist quoted by the POLITICO, thought Haley’s address “was a speech full of signifiers and markers for primary.” As I listened to my fellow Mississippian, I agreed with the strategist: here is a candidate who has “walked-the-walk on spending, restricted abortion, and welcomes Tea Partiers”. As a Southerner, I also saw another signifier and marker when Haley closed his speech by stating that Lincoln was the father of the Republican Party; and that the Republican Party stands for freedom in today’s society. As Reagan once said, “Not bad, not bad at all.”

As I have stated in this space before, if the voters are as aroused as they were in the last congressional elections and are looking for a presidential candidate who is capable of steering the national ship of states through troubled waters, Haley Barbour will assuredly be a “top-tier” candidate for President in 2012.

The Southern Elephants

2011-02-03T13:44:00.000-08:00

A recent article in the January 27, 2011, edition of the Madison County Journal took note of the recent conversion of two more members of the Mississippi State House of Representatives to the Mississippi Republican Party. On the previous Thursday, both Russ Nowell of Louisville and Margaret Rogers of New Albany announced at Republican Party Headquarters that they would run for re-election as Republicans. I was especially pleased to read about the decision of Margaret Rogers, who I came to know well during my tenure as Republican State Chairman.

As noted by the Journal, Russ and Margaret “are the fourth and fifth former Democratic representatives to change to the GOP since January of 2009…” and “nearly 30 Democratic elected officials have switched to the Republican Party in that time.” The reality is that Republicans now claim 53 of the 122 members of the Mississippi House of Representatives with 62 being the magic number for Republicans to be able to elect a Speaker of the House without having to negotiate for Democratic votes.

Mississippi Republicans rejoiced and were justly proud of their achievements in November, 2011, when a sea change occurred in the national congressional elections. That is when Republicans Alan Nunnelee and Steven Palazzo were sent to Congress to replace two able and well-financed Democrats. The defeat of long-time Democratic “Blue-Dog” Congressman Gene Taylor was especially startling and gratifying. I was quoted in the January 27, 2011, article in the Journal as attributing “the recent turnovers to the divergence of Democratic and conservative ideology” and the fact that many local Democrats “have found themselves at odds with the National Party’s message.” These incontestable facts, together with hard work of outstanding Republican leaders over the years, beginning with Wirt Yerger in the 1950’s, have brought the Mississippi Republican Party to a position of unprecedented political dominance that would have been hard to imagine as late as the year 2001, when the Party had only one statewide office holder, Auditor Phil Bryant.

In his excellent autobiography A Courageous Cause, Wirt Yerger describes his role as the first Chairman of the modern Mississippi Republican Party and how he worked with other young Republican Chairmen in the surrounding southern states to help Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona defeat eastern establishment Republicans, led by Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in 1964. The differences between Rockefeller and Goldwater were philosophical, and Goldwater’s conservative economic message in 1964 appealed to conservative Mississippians of those years. As a result, the Mississippi Republican Party began to grow in the face of stern and sometimes vicious opposition from Mississippi’s Democrats. They claimed that a split in the “white vote” in Mississippi would lead to integration of the races and wide-spread black voting in local elections. Not withstanding this type of racial argument, Mississippians elected their first Republican in modern history (Mack McAllister from Meridian) to the state legislature in 1963. The rest is history

The overwhelming Republican victory in the Congressional elections in 2010 was also driven by differences in ideology and a rejection of President Obama’s economic policies . In Georgia, Republicans carried every state-wide race from Governor to Public Service Commission for the first time in the state’s history; and in Arkansas, the headlines on the editorial page of the Benton County Daily Record from heavily Republican northwest Arkansas, stated “ARKANSAS TURNS RED”. The newspaper took note of the fact that Arkansans (who, like Georgians, were voting not only for members of Congress but also in their statewide elections) defeated a sitting United States Senator, Blanche Lincoln, and also elected two new Republican Congressmen leaving only one Blue Dog conservative in office to represent the interests of the Democratic Party. In addition, Arkansas Republicans elected a Secretary of State and a Lieutenant Governor, which was, according to the Daily Record, “unheard of for Republican candidates in down-ballot elections – until now.” On the state level, the Arkansas House Republican caucus grew from 28 seats to 44 seats with similar gains in the state Senate, which means that House Democrats in Arkansas will no longer be able to garner the required three-quarters of the votes in the House necessary to raise taxes.

Summing up the election results in Arkansas in November, 2010, the Daily Record concluded:

“The last Southern state the Democratic Party had left voted Republican Tuesday night. The shift took 20 years longer than other states in the region. It took a lot of blind determination by the Democratic Party’s national liberal base. It took a lot of persistence by the outnumbered, outgunned Republican Party of Arkansas. While we believe voter frustration with both parties drove the results, that doesn’t change the new political reality in Arkansas. The Democratic spell here is broken.”

The Democratic spell is indeed now broken throughout all of the southern states and the Benton County Daily Record correctly gave us the reasons why. May all southern Republicans remember the reasons for our successes and never abuse the trust that the voters have placed in us. My sincere thanks to Reta Hamilton, the excellent Republican Nation Committeewoman from Arkansas, and Sue Everhart, the outstanding Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, for furnishing me the data as to what happened in their states on November 3, 2010.

HALEY BARBOUR AND RICHARD RUSSELL

2011-01-06T06:13:00.000-08:00

On November 2, 2010, the voters in the United States Congressional elections delivered a smashing victory to the Republican Party, augmented by the tea parties. It is now well documented that not only did the Republicans gain significant seats in the Senate, they also gained an outright majority in the House of Representatives, removed Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and reduced her to minority leader status. All in all, election day in November, 2010, was a great day for those who fervently believe that government is at its best when it governs least, thereby giving all citizens maximum freedom from the boot of government on their necks as they pursue the American dream for themselves and their families.

In 2010, Americans were clearly focused, like a laser beam, on rejecting Obama’s socialistic solutions to the 2010 economic recession, on cutting spending, and on reducing the size of government. They were disturbed and genuinely frightened by the massive bailouts and other spending initiatives of the Obama Administration, and they watched with horror as the federal government literally went into the automobile business through the takeover of General Motors, an authentic American icon (the nation’s Secretary of Defense once said “what is good for General Motors is good for the country”). They watched the government’s bailouts of quasi-federal financial institutions like the politically active Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which openly supported Congressional candidates of their liking, even though their financial operations were backed by the federal government. Finally, they watched, with fear and trembling, what appeared to be the teetering of the nation’s financial system, with the demise of Lehman Brothers and billions of government dollars loaned to Morgan Stanley, Citibank and other investment banks and banking institutions across the country in an effort to avoid a financial crash similar to the l932 crash which resulted in the Great Depression.

The voice of the people was heard in 2010, but the 2010 elections are now in the rearview mirror, and the 2012 Presidential elections loom down the road. The single most important question now facing the American people is whether they can maintain their focus for the next two years on the issues they voted on in 2010; or will their thinking be diverted as President Obama attempts to “triangulate” his agenda and, all of a sudden, stresses “bipartisanship” and compromise with Republicans on the great issues of the day. His strategy, of course, is to regain the trust of independent voters that once supported him as he prepares to run for a second term as President in 2012.

Will the American people somehow become convinced once again that President Obama is fit to be the Commander in Chief and leader of the free world for four more years? Or will they conclude that the future well being of America depends upon electing someone who genuinely believes in the genius of the American free enterprise system; one who believes in American first; and, significantly, understands and embraces the concept that the most important job of the next President is to protect the homeland?

The answer to these questions depends in part, of course, on who the Republicans nominate to oppose President Obama in the 2012 Presidential election. If the Republicans field a well-meaning but weak candidate – one who is not a strong leader, has difficulty in communicating with the American people, or has difficulty in effectively presenting the Republican economic alternatives to Obamacare or the massive Democratic spending programs, then it is likely that Republicans will lose in 2012. On the other hand, if the Republicans field a candidate who is a strong, steady leader, one who can communicate his message, and one who is clearly capable of running the government and of stabilizing the ship of state in hazardous waters, then the GOP has a clear chance to defeat Obama, cut the massive deficit, and win the War on Terror.

If Republicans nationally do not tear themselves apart in the Presidential Primary season leading up to the 2012 elections, and if they decide that they want to field an opponent to Obama who is an accomplished leader with a record of achievement, who can effectively communicate the Republican message as an alternative to Obama and his socialistic agenda, then Haley Barbour clearly has a chance to gain the Republican nomination for President in 2010. His record of accomplishment as Governor of Mississippi, as Chairman of the Republican National Committee and as Chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association is well documented and his actions have been widely praised. His spectacular performance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina clearly demonstrated that he knows how to lead in times of crisis. Still, as the Presidential election of 2012 is now entering its preliminary stages, Barbour has been criticized for remarks made by him that some local and national pundits, as well as backers of other potential candidates, have deemed to be racially insensitive.

There is no doubt, as stated in the December 22, 2010, edition of the Wall Street Journal and as acknowledged by Governor Barbour and his legion of supporters nationwide, that Mississippi’s civil rights history is sure to be a topic of wide discussion if he runs for President. Thus, he obviously must choose his words carefully on the topic of civil rights and be well-armed with the facts as he answers questions on that subject in the months ahead.

I think Haley Barbour, like his fellow Yazoo City resident and author, the late Willie Morris, is genuinely proud of the fact that Yazoo City integrated its schools without violence in the 1960s; and I also believe that Republicans nationally will not turn their backs on Haley in a Presidential contest because of events that occurred when he was a teenager. He knows, however, that there are many that suffered and lost their lives during the civil rights struggles of those years and that Republicans nationally will not grant him the Republican nomination for President if he appears insensitive to what occurred fifty to sixty years ago in Mississippi and elsewhere. I am betting that Governor Barbour, despite intensive efforts to deflect the thinking of Republicans nationally, will transcend the issue of race in the upcoming Presidential campaign, and that Republicans will focus on who can best present and communicate the Republican alternative to Obama in 2012.

In his brilliant work, “Master of the Senate”, the third volume of Robert A. Caro’s account of the years of Lyndon Johnson, the author spends considerable time writing about another famous and highly capable southerner who grew up on Georgia, Richard Brevard (Dick) Russell, whose family was plunged into poverty in the aftermath of the War Between the States. He became a member of the legislature at an early age and Speaker of the House of Representatives as his traits of integrity and independence became apparent. One Georgia legislator said, “Dick Russell is the closest thing I’ve ever seen to be an honest politician.” Not only would he “tell you it’s impossible to get what you want,” he would “tell you if he doesn’t think you should be asking for what you want.” “He also had the ability . . . to persuade men to cooperate and unite behind his aims. . . .” “He always gave credit to others”, and they came to “love him and trust him.” (Master of the Senate, pp. 170-171).

Dick Russell ran for Governor of Georgia in 1930 at age 32, and his brother, Robert E. Lee Russell, was his campaign’s public relations man. At age 33, in 1931, Russell became the youngest Governor of Georgia in the state’s history.

During his brief tenure as Governor, Russell read and re-read War and Peace and the works of Greek historians and Roman historians to learn how emperors and other government leaders handled issues. As Governor, Russell attacked Georgia’s woeful financial situation eroded by the Great Depression. The state at that time could not meet its obligations to public schools or public institutions, and he reduced the state’s debt by one-third. During his tenure as Governor, he reduced the number of public agencies in Georgia’s bloated government from 102 to 18, created the state’s first central purchasing agency, and required “sealed bids” for all state purchases.

After serving as Governor for only 18 months, Russell ran for and was elected United States Senator at age 35 and became the youngest Senator in the United States in 1933. He went on to become a powerful leader in the Senate (Chairman of the Armed Services Committee) exhibiting the same traits that endeared him to his fellow Georgians. “He told the truth” said Senator Sam Erwin of North Carolina – “what the contents of a bill were or what the effects of that bill would be.” (Master of the Senate, p. 178). The Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. was ultimately named after him.

Dick Russell’s influence in the Senate became so great (and the respect and affection for him by his fellow Senators so heart-felt) that he became the acknowledged Democratic leader in the United States Senate. He indignantly defended himself against implications of racism, and his biographer reported that Russell did not deliver racist diatribes on the Senate floor. “He aimed to educate and convince northern senators that the south should be left alone to handle racial problems.” (Master of the Senate, p. 185). And he did convince them, for a time.

1952 was the year Richard Russell ran for President. His opponents in the Democratic Primary were Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee (not well-liked in the Senate), Vice-President Alben Barkley (too old at 74); New York’s Governor Averill Harriman; and the reluctant Governor of Illinois, Adlai Stevenson (backed by retiring President Harry Truman).

At the 1952 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, it took 616 convention votes of the 1230 delegates to win the nomination. Russell had a solid base of 262 votes (every southern state except Tennessee) and he won the Florida Primary, to great fanfare. However, when he ventured north, he met the following reaction from New Jersey: “My God, Senator, we’d like to support you. You’re the best man around, but we can’t vote for a southerner.”

Russell received no support from Maine, Pennsylvania, or any other northern or western state to which he traveled. In the end, the diminutive and reluctant Adlai Stevenson was nominated and went on to be soundly defeated by the Republican, Dwight David Eisenhower. Russell got only 268 votes after the second ballot. (Master of the Senate, pp. 465-470)

The message of 1952 was clear. The candidate who had the leadership skills to run the country lost the Democratic nomination because a southern segregationist could not win during the civil rights struggles that were beginning in that era. The Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education was rendered in 1954.

Today, integration is a reality, and the issue for Republicans to decide is whether they should select, as their candidate to face President Obama in 2012, that person who is best capable of solving the nation’s problems and who is best able to communicate the Republican message. Or should they be diverted by sectionalism or fear that their candidate might be criticized, justly or unjustly, for events that occurred fifty years ago?

Haley Barbour was spectacularly successful as Chairman of the Republican National Committee. He knows the Republican message and how to deliver it. He would be a spectacular Republican nominee for President as well; and an honorable representative of the Party of Lincoln.

THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ZEUS AND KINGS OF TORT

2010-12-02T11:10:00.000-08:00

I have now finished reading THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ZEUS by Curtis Wilkie, who teaches journalism at the University of Mississippi, and is a fellow at the Overby Center for Southern Journalism and Politics at Ole Miss. Mr. Wilkie has been a prominent journalist for many years, serving early in his career as a reporter for the CLARKSDALE PRESS REGISTER during Mississippi’s civil rights struggles that received national attention. During that time, he formed a fairly close relationship with the late Aaron Henry, one of the leaders of the civil rights movement in Mississippi and now a historic figure in Mississippi history. Later, Wilkie was a national and international reporter for the BOSTON GLOBE, during which he covered everything from presidential elections to the seemingly endless Arab-Israeli conflicts in the Middle East.

In 1993, Mr. Wilkie returned to the South and lived for a period in New Orleans, near his childhood home in Pike County, Mississippi. Upon returning to the South, he wrote a nostalgic autobiographical account of his life in an excellent book entitled DIXIE, which I re-read in preparation for writing this review of ZEUS. In DIXIE, Mr. Wilkie wrote about why he left his home state after his stay in Clarksdale, although he loved Mississippi, and why he eventually felt the call to return home to be with “his people”, as did Willie Morris. After re-reading DIXIE and now having read ZEUS, I am convinced that Curtis Wilkie does indeed love the Magnolia State and wants the best for its people, although he may disagree with many of us as to what is best. He strikes me as a person with whom you may disagree, but he is not disagreeable in the process. I also perceive that as a citizen of Oxford and in preparing for and writing ZEUS, Mr. Wilkie was struck by the great personal tragedy that occurred in the rise and fall of Dickie Scruggs (called “Zeus” by his childhood classmates).

Like many other Mississippians, I had been looking forward to reading THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ZEUS, which also has a subtitle: “The rise and ruin of America’s Most Powerful Trial Lawyer”. As an attorney, a former judge, and as one active over the years in Mississippi politics, I am personally acquainted with many of the principle characters who appear in ZEUS, and I found it painful at times to read. It is of course a book which chronicles the now familiar rise and fall of Dickie Scruggs and those around him. According to local new articles, the film rights to Wilkie’s historical account of the illegal activities of Scruggs and others, including a brief sketch of Scruggs’ early life, how he became a wealthy trial lawyer, and his later criminal convictions after participating in two separate attempts to improperly influence legal rulings of two Mississippi trial judges in two separate cases, have now been sold to a producer and author, Sam Haskell, with the blessing of Mr. Scruggs and family members.

About one year ago, I also read KINGS OF TORT, by website owner Alan Lange and Tim Dawson, the 36 – year federal prosecutor who served as lead counsel during the investigation and prosecution of the now famous Scruggs cases. ZEUS and KINGS OF TORT give similar, yet strikingly different, accounts of the efforts of Dickie Scruggs and others to corrupt Mississippi’s judicial system. As an interested observer, I was naturally anxious to compare the two books, one written from the vantage point of the prosecutor who brought Scruggs and others to justice, and the other written from the vantage point of a prominent journalist and acknowledged friend of Dickie Scruggs. After carefully reading the Wilkie book and reviewing my notes after reading the Lange/Dawson book, I have concluded that both ZEUS and KINGS OF TORT are important works. However, one cannot grasp the full implications or the gravity of the events described by the authors without reading (and studying) both of them, one right after the other. Both books should be required reading by every law student and certainly by every lawyer who aspires to practice law or serve as a member of the judiciary. Finally, these two well-written books, which deal with the intricacies of human frailty and which clearly demonstrate how the lure of potential wealth and/or power can corrupt the best and the brightest among us, should also be read by anyone who votes in a judicial election or who has any influence over who is selected as a judge in any setting. The saga described in these books demonstrates, in crystal clear fashion, that who we allow to practice law or serve as judges is important and matters greatly.

The differences in these two books are also crystal clear. One was written by a journalist and reflects his healthy skepticism of society in general and the motives of those who live among us. Thus, those who are portrayed as heroes in the Lange/Dawson book (i.e., Judge Henry Lackey, the prosecutors, etc.) do not come across as quite so heroic in the Wilkie book. On the other hand, the Lange/Dawson book (written from the vantage point of the prosecutor) chronicles the sordid events and the attempted bribes in black and white fashion, and it focuses on the major events as they unfolded legally. Wilkie ‘s account, while historically accurate, also draws heavily on his personal interviews, not only with Dickie Scruggs, but with the members of his family as well. The reader obviously gets to hear the Scruggs side of the story in much more detail when reading Wilkie’s book, because Wilkie conducted personal interviews with the Scruggs family, while Lange and Dawson were denied access to them. It is noteworthy that Wilkie also conducted an interview with Tom Dawson and that several photographs inserted in his book were supplied “as a courtesy of the Scruggs family”.

It is also noteworthy that KINGS OF TORT focuses not only on the Dickie Scruggs cases, but also spends a considerable amount of time focusing on the cases involving Paul Minor (a wealthy trial lawyer on the Gulf Coast) and on the federal charges against him involving his attempts, through financial contributions, to improperly influence the decisions of Gulf Coast Chancellor Wes Teel and Circuit Judge John Whitfield. THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ZEUS spends little time on the Paul Minor cases, other than to describe Minor’s relationship with Scruggs.

Both books spend considerable time describing the ultimately successful efforts of Scruggs, attorney Joey Langston, former State Auditor Steve Patterson and former Hinds County District Attorney Ed Peters to corrupt Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Bobby DeLaughter and to improperly get him to issue a favorable ruling for Scruggs in an important case involving the division of legal fees. Wilkie, however, focuses much more clearly on the shadowy activities of P. L. Blake in assisting Dickie Scruggs, and spends more time describing the relationship of Scruggs with his brother-in-law, former Senator Trent Lott, Senator Roger Wicker, and others who Scruggs described as being a part of “the force”, an allegedly shadowy network including P.L. Blake, that exists in Mississippi and Washington. Significantly, Wilkie also writes extensively about the political involvement of then Senator and now Vice-President Joe Biden with Steve Patterson and Joey Langston.

In the “Preface” to his book, Mr. Wilkie described the Scruggs saga as perhaps “the story of my lifetime.” I believe that Mr. Wilkie correctly concluded that the Scruggs story “was a remarkable story of personal treachery” with “ramifications that extended to high levels in Washington.” However, I question Wilkie’s implication that “enormous professional hatred within the legal community” and a “zealous prosecution” were somehow contributing causes of the tragedy that is so clearly outlined in his book.

The epic legal battles between Scruggs and his opponents, Charles Merkle, Alwyn Luckey, Bob Wilson, Johnny Jones, and Grady Tollison, which are portrayed by Wilkie, as well as by Lange and Dawson, were, to be sure, high stakes and ugly affairs. However, such competition and personal enmity among legal participants are not unique in American jurisprudence. In fact, they are played out at various levels in courtroom dramas, in big towns and small towns, all across America every day. It is not unusual for a defendant to complain that he has been the subject of a “zealous prosecution” or that the judge was too harsh and unbending during the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. The American legal system is well-equipped to protect the public interest and the rights of a defendant in these trial situations, so long as fair, impartial, well-grounded, and courageous judges preside over such trials.

What makes the Scruggs cases such high drama is not only the big money or the political ramifications involved, but the fact that those that went to jail mounted brazen, full-scale assaults (not once, but twice) on the American judicial system by attempting to bribe judges to achieve desired results. Just as John Grisham’s novel, THE APPEAL, is disturbing because it unveils the seamy side of judicial elections in Mississippi and elsewhere, THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ZEUS fully exposes the activities of a group that totally lost respect for the American judicial system. It is noteworthy that Lange and Dawson in KINGS OF TORT expressed their belief that Scruggs, Paul Minor and the others around them convinced themselves that their opponents were “evil incarnate”, and that their ends justified their means. However, in the eyes of those who believe that the American judicial system is worth saving, those described by Wilkie, Lange and Dawson, who attacked and tried to compromise that system, are the ones that became evil in the process.

Redemption is always possible in this world, and it is true, as stated by Sam Haskell, that all of us make mistakes. However, the lessons of the Scruggs cases are greater than what will ultimately happen to Dickie Scruggs or the others. In order for our fragile system of justice to remain intact, and in order for the general public to maintain the vital and necessary confidence in our judicial system, people like Dickie Scruggs must be dealt with harshly in order to discourage others like him from attempting to bribe judges.

Hopefully, any motion picture that is produced based upon THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ZEUS will primarily dwell on the tragic assault on our judicial system which was perpetrated by Dickie Scruggs and his associates, rather than adopting a storyline emphasizing the tragic human interest story also described in Mr. Wilkie’s book.

THE CONSERVATIVE RESURRECTION

2010-11-04T06:41:00.000-07:00

Shortly after Barack Obama’s inauguration as President following the 2008 elections, the conventional wisdom of the political pundits was that conservatism had “not only been defeated but discredited” as a result of Obama’s election. (Sam Tanenhaus’ The New Republic). Tanenhaus also believed that Republicans further damaged their “brand” by opposing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the $814 billion stimulus package designed to lift America out of the recession. (Today, the U.S. unemployment rate still hovers around 10 per cent).

In his 2009 book, Clinton political consultant James Carville predicted that the Democrats would rule the “next generation”, because Democrats had identified themselves with the hopes and dreams of young people, women, and Latinos (the nation’s fastest growing minority). Conversely, according to Carville, Republicans were only appealing to a limited, mostly southern base.

It is now clear, to paraphrase Mark Twain, that the demise of conservatism and the Republican Party in America was “grossly exaggerated”.

As I wrote this column on an early Wednesday morning, still sleepily giddy over historic 2010 midterm elections and fending off telephone calls from friends who naturally wanted to share their jubilation and share their opinions on why Republicans won such a resounding victory, the realization finally set in that a tidal wave has occurred and that Republicans had picked up at least 63 seats in the House of Representatives, the largest swing of Congressional seats since the midterm elections of 1938, during the Roosevelt era and during the heart of the Great Depression. It set in that the new Republican Congressional seats are not only located in Mississippi, where the GOP took back seats once held by Senators Roger Wicker and Trent Lott, but also included five Congressional seats in New York and Congressional seats throughout the northeast, the midwest, and all across America – even in California.

In looking closer at the Congressional results, I found that two African American Republicans were elected – one in South Carolina (where Indian/American Republican Nikki Haley was also elected Governor) and another in South Florida near Miami. Moreover, Republican voters effectively “fired” Nancy Pelosi and took over the leadership of the House of Representatives by electing a healthy majority of the House’s 435 seats. As Ronald Reagan once said in summing up his Presidency, “Not bad. Not bad at all.”

While the Republican takeover in the House of Representatives was the big story of the 2010 midterm elections, the ecstasy does not stop there. In the 37 Governors’ races decided on November 2^nd, Republicans needed to pick up only three gubernatorial seats to win a majority of the governorships, nationwide. Instead, thanks in part to extremely effective leadership and fundraising by the Republican Governors’ Association and RGA Chairman Haley Barbour, new Republican Governors were elected in Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wyoming. These new Governors will play an effective role in making sure that the Democrats do not “gerrymander” the new Congressional and state legislative lines to be drawn by the states in 2011, based on new census figures. In all, Republicans picked up at least 6 or 7 new Governors on Tuesday evening, and 17 state legislatures “flipped” to majority Republican, including Texas and Alabama for the first time in American history. Again, not bad at all.

To complete the election results, Republicans also picked up at least 6 new seats in the United States Senate, with the Senatorial results in the States of Washington, Colorado and Alaska yet to be decided at this writing. Republicans needed to gain 10 new Republican Senators to win a majority in the Senate, and they failed in this effort (Harry Reid retained his Senate seat in Nevada and served free food near the voting precincts). However, Republicans were significantly elected to the Senate from unlikely places like Wisconsin (where Johnson defeated the prominent Russ Feingold); Illinois (by taking President Obama’s old Senate seat); and in Pennsylvania (where Toomey of the Club for Growth took Democrat switcher Arlen Spector’s seat). I predict that Republicans will cobble together a working majority in the Senate on many key votes in 2011 and leading up to 2012 Presidential elections.

The question for the morning after the 2010 midterm elections is what caused the tidal wave and the major governmental shift that has now occurred? Laura Ingraham said on Tuesday night that the vote represented a repudiation of Obama’s policies since his being elected President. Sarah Palin said that the message of the election was that people do not want an “over-reaching government” to take over their lives. Charles Krauthammer opined that the repudiation of Obama on Tuesday night represented a “return to normalcy” and a rejection of a brazen attempt to move America to a socialist-style European form of government.

I agree with all of the above. I also believe that public dismay with the slow pace of the nation’s economic recovery; the ineffectiveness of the stimulus; the public reaction to Obamacare; and of course the outrage and energy of the Tea Parties, all played significant roles in achieving the results that were realized in the wee hours after the midterm elections on Tuesday evening. I am sure all of us need more time to fully digest what happened as a result of this historic election. May we all hope and pray that our state and national leaders will learn from it. The future of our great nation depends on it.

NOVEMBER 2, 2010 AND HAYEK'S ROAD

2010-10-26T14:02:00.000-07:00

During the past several months, we have been discussing the upcoming Congressional elections which will be held on November 2, 2010. At this juncture, it is safe to say that our country is in a state of upheaval - and that many, many people are angry. Many of those who supported President Obama are angry because he has not completely transformed America into a European-style democracy that is heavy on government services and "fairness" to those that fall below a certain income level. Many on the right (and many in the middle) are genuinely disturbed and afraid that we have elected a President who really believes that the agenda of the radical left would be best for the land of the free and the home of the brave. While a substantial majority of Americans still believe that a capitalistic system of government is best for the country, a recent poll concluded that an astounding 38% of our citizens believe that a "socialistic" system would be preferable.

Simply stated, the issue all Americans must decide on November 2, 2010, is whether we want to preserve the free enterprise system in America (at least for two more years) or whether we want to travel "the road to serfdom" described by F. A. Hayek in his famous book years ago in 1944. "In that year - when Eleanor Roosevelt supported the efforts of Stalin, Albert Einstein subscribed to the socialist program, and the British Labour Party was planning for a future Labour government" to replace Winston Churchill after World War II, Hayek's The Road To Serfdom "was seen as heretical for its passionate warning against the dangers of state control over the means of production".[1]

What Americans face on November 2, 2010, is a clear choice. Americans who vote for any Democrat on that date will, directly or indirectly, give a vote to the political party that is clearly traveling Hayek's Road. If the Democrats maintain the majority in Congress, the Speaker of the House and also every committee chairman that controls legislation will be Democrats that sign on to the theory that a collectivist society is best for America. Therefore, the assurances of many "Bluedog Democrats" that they will not vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker if they are elected really mean nothing because their Party will remain in power, and they will, at the very least, be giving aid and comfort to those that travel Hayek's Road.

The only alternative to traveling Hayek's Road on November 2, 2010, is to "throw the rascals out" and restore control of the Congress to the Republicans. To be sure, many elected Republican officials have compromised their values in the past, and their actions led to the creation of the Tea Party movement. If Republicans do regain control of the Congress in 2010, they act at their peril if they do not heed the angry voices of their constituents. Those constituents are trying to tell them that they want no part of Hayek's Road.

As we approach November 2, 2010, I remain optimistic about America. I see new young leadership slowly emerging within the Republican Party, with new ideas and new energy that will help us take our country back. These potential new leaders are articulate and have the communication skills that will be needed to warn our citizens against the dangers of collectivism in the Twenty-First Century.

[1] Introduction to Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"" (1994, U. of Chicago)

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL

2010-09-21T12:43:00.000-07:00

This past week, the fault lines within the Republican Party were laid bare as Tea Party forces, led by former Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska and Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, stormed the barricades during the Republican Primary elections held on September 14, 2010, and nominated Christine O'Donnell as the Republican nominee for the United States Senate in Delaware, a state that has trended Democrat in recent years and where Vice-President Joe Biden had served as Senator since 1973. Ms. O'Donnell defeated Mike Castle, a well-known moderate Republican who has been a member of Congress since 1993 and was a two-term Governor. Congressman Castle was much better financed than Ms. O'Donnell and was the heavy favorite to win the Republican nomination.

The primary election contest between O'Donnell and Castle was bitterly contested with Castle and national news media pundits, including Fox News contributors Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer, raising serious questions about the truthfulness and integrity of O'Donnell, as well as her financial difficulties with the Internal Revenue Service and financial institutions. She responded by criticizing Congressman Castle for voting for President Obama's stimulus packages and proposed Democratic "Cap and Trade" legislation; and also called upon him to put on his "man pants" after engaging in "un-manly tactics" during the campaign.

After losing the primary election, Congressman Castle has now declined to support O'Donnell in the general election in November. On election night, Karl Rove pronounced that Republicans, although previously favored to win handily, will now likely lose the Delaware Senate seat and with it, the majority and committee chairmanships in the Senate to Harry Reid and the Democrats. Krauthammer recently opined on the BILL O'REILLY SHOW that O'Donnell has only one chance in ten to win in November, although adding: "I hope I am wrong." Senator Jim DeMint responded by saying that he would rather for the Republicans to nominate a losing candidate that stands for something, rather than to nominate a winning candidate that does not embrace conservative values. O'Donnell, for her part, taking note that she had been branded a "wacko", denounced her critics as "anti-American" in one of her speeches following her primary victory.

After all of this drama following the September 14, Republican Primary election, one can legitimately ask whether divided Republicans can nevertheless win the November Senatorial election in a blue state, or whether traditional conventional wisdom applies - that a divided political party traditionally loses (following the logic and advice that Ben Franklin once gave to his colleagues during the American Revolution - that "we either hang together or we will hang separately").

Although the Delaware Senate race was really not on my radar screen until a day or two before the primary election, what has happened since O'Donnell's victory is in many ways reminiscent of what happened during the Congressional race in North Mississippi (MS-01) during a special election held two years ago. In that race, after the appointment of Congressman Roger Wicker to replace Trent Lott as United States Senator, several prominent Republicans ran in a heated and ugly primary to take Wicker's seat in the House of Representatives. The race became so heated that the defeated candidate in the run-off election refused to publicly support the new Republican nominee. The result was that a Democrat was elected to Congress in MS-01 for the first time in many years. Now, chastened Mississippi Republicans are united in a spirited effort to regain Wicker's old House seat.

O'Donnell supporters correctly state that these are not ordinary times and that frustrated Americans, especially conservatives and independents, seem ready to "throw the rascals out" during this election season. If this is true, O'Donnell still has a chance to win in Delaware where her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, is a far-left attorney and county executive who has fully supported the Obama agenda and now downplays a piece he wrote for the Amherst College newspaper - "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist." However, it would help O'Donnell's chances if Castle would fully embrace her candidacy and she would graciously accept his support.

Jim DeMint is correct that Republicans want new and different type leaders who are not perceived as RINOs - Republicans In Name Only. If Christine O'Donnell is elected Senator, Republicans will certainly have found a different type leader in Delaware

HALEY BARBOUR FOR PRESIDENT?

2010-09-10T14:43:00.000-07:00

What is becoming abundantly clear is that Mississippi's Governor, Haley Barbour, will give serious consideration to becoming a Republican candidate for President in 2012. This is as it should be for several reasons. Haley's past record of achievement and service to his Party have been spectacularly successful. Over the years, he took two relatively low-profile jobs, Chairman of the Republican Nation Committee and Chairman of the Republican Governors' Association, and through strong leadership transformed them into highly effective influential positions within the Party. As Chairman of the RNC and later as Chairman of the RGA, he has significantly and single handedly contributed to the growth and success of the Republican Party across this nation.

As Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the 1990s, he worked with Newt Gingrich and other Republican Congressional leaders to implement their now-famous "Contract for America", which directly led to the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives since World War II. Likewise, as Chairman of the Republican Governors' Association, he took a position, previously with little influence, and has made the RGA into the premier fundraiser and strategist for the Party nationally, as we approach the crucial Congressional elections on November 2.

As Governor of Mississippi, it is conceded by supporters and detractors alike that Haley has performed brilliantly and successfully, resisted tax increases in state government, and fought for a balanced budget, while effectively pushing for economic development and work force training, as well as for increased spending in key areas like education. He deservedly received national praise during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, and his crisis leadership skills as Governor were favorably contrasted with the job performance of the hapless Democratic Governor of Louisiana, who appeared ineffective and overwhelmed by events during the disaster that descended upon the people of Mississippi and Louisiana in 2005.

However, despite all of Haley's successes over the years, there is another compelling reason why he should become a Presidential candidate: that is because, unlike many of his Republican colleagues, he speaks clearly (although with a southern accent), authoritatively, and with credibility on issues of national importance during a time when most Americans are searching for answers. They want to know (1) how to solve America's economic problems; (2) how to protect the homeland; and, (3) indeed, how to protect the American way of life after the recent economic meltdown and the imposition of Obamacare and other socialistic measures thrust upon us by the President, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democrats.

My best guess is that when Americans go to the polls in the November, 2010, Congressional elections, all three of these issues will be on the minds of the voters, with an emphasis on issues (1) and (3). I also believe that when the voters go to the polls in 2012 to elect a President, these same issues will be on their minds, but with an emphasis on issue (2).

When the time comes in 2012 to determine who can best protect the homeland, I believe Americans will be looking for (as Haley puts it) the "anti-Obama" - someone, like Haley Barbour, who will put American first.

THE BEAUTY CONTEST AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

2010-08-31T12:31:00.000-07:00

In recent weeks, various pundits in Mississippi have begun to speculate about what some have called the upcoming "beauty contest" - that is, the Mississippi election in 2011 to determine who will succeed Haley Barbour as Mississippi's next Governor. In years past many statewide candidates trying to raise money to fund their "down-ticket" races for offices such as Treasurer, Insurance Commissioner or Auditor, have lamented that donors were only interested in giving money to their favorite candidate in the "beauty contest" - which does aptly describe the fact that, indeed, the Governor's race is the "main event" in the quadrennial statewide elections.

At this juncture, it appears that both the Democrats and the Republicans will stage healthy primary elections for Governor in 2011, with credible candidates that will stir the interest of the party faithful and lead to a clear choice between traditional Democratic and Republican values. However, there has been some speculation that prominent "wild-card" candidates might enter the race as independents or representing minor political parties, which could force the election of Mississippi's next Governor to be decided by the state house of representatives if the leading candidate in the November, 2011, general election fails to receive over fifty per cent (50%) of the votes cast.

According to Article 5, Section 140 of the MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION OF 1890, "The person found to have received a majority of all the electoral votes, and also a majority of the popular vote, shall be declared elected." However, Article 5, Section 141 then says "If no person shall receive such majorities, then the house of representatives shall proceed to choose a governor from the two persons who shall have received the highest number of popular votes . . . by VIVA VOCE vote . . . ." Section 140 of Article 5, of the Constitution, which was amended in 1982, states that persons receiving the highest number of votes in a legislative district of the house of representatives are awarded "electoral votes" for as many votes in the house of representative as that legislative district is entitled to receive.

The 1999 race between Democratic Lieutenant Governor Ronnie Musgrove and Republican Congressman Mike Parker was the closest gubernatorial race in Mississippi history. Out of almost three quarters of a million votes cast, Musgrove won 8300 more votes than Parker in a four-way election, but fell a fraction of a percentage point short of receiving a majority, as required by Mississippi's Constitution. Since neither candidate received a majority of the popular vote, the Mississippi House of Representatives had to select the winner. They chose Musgrove - the first time in modern history the election of a Mississippi governor was decided by members of the Legislature.

It is noteworthy that Article 5, Section 143 of Mississippi's Constitution also says that . . . "[a]ll other state officers shall be elected at the same time, and in the same manner as provided for election of governor". Mississippi has eight (8) "state officers" who are elected by a statewide vote, namely: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Auditor, Insurance Commissioner, and Commissioner of Agriculture. The upcoming November, 2011, state elections in Mississippi will be held at a time when the mood of the electorate (reflective of the national mood) is one of anger, frustration and unpredictability. Numerous third-party candidates will likely enter the fray, and they will likely get a substantial number of votes. For example, candidates from the right-of-center Libertarian Party (Ron Paul followers) have been consistently receiving at least one (1) percent of the vote in Mississippi elections where that Party has fielded candidates for some time now.

If the third party candidates in Mississippi's 2011 elections gain sufficient votes to deny the front runner a majority of the popular vote and/or the electoral vote in 2011, the legislators who are members of the state's house of representatives will decide the winner. There are 72 Democrats and 50 Republicans presently serving as members of the House. If such an election were held today by voice vote in that legislative body, the presiding officer of the meeting would be the Speaker of the House - Democrat Billy McCoy.

ARE THE DEMOCRATS HEADED FOR A THUMPING?

2010-08-09T12:26:00.000-07:00

After the 2006, Congressional elections, President George W. Bush commented that Republicans took "a thumping" in the House races; and indeed they did, losing control of the House leadership and bringing Speaker Nancy Pelosi to power after twelve years of Republican control.

Michael Barone, the highly respected political analyst for the WASHINGTON EXAMINER, and the author of THE ALMANAC OF AMERICAN POLITICS, believes it is likely that the House Democrats will be the ones taking the thumping in the November Congressional elections this year. In fact, he states that unless the shift of opinion away from the Democrats so evident in the polls turns out to be illusory, "House Democrats are headed toward historic losses." In an article written for REAL CLEAR POLITICS, dated July 29, 2010, he tells us why.

In his article, Mr. Barone points out that in regard to the generic ballot question ("Which party's candidate will you vote for in elections to the House?") asked of voters by most pollsters, the current realclearpolitics.com average shows Republicans ahead by 45 percent to 41 percent. Ten of 15 major opinion polls conducted in July asking the generic ballot question showed Republicans to be ahead; with Democrats leading in four (twice by 1 percent), and one poll showing a tie.

He then tells us that, historically, the results of the generic ballot question by pollsters "… has tended to under-predict Republican performance in off-year elections." Thus, Mr Barone boldly predicts that Republicans "… may be on the brink of doing better than in any elections since 1946, when they won a 245 - 188 margin in the House - larger than any they've held ever since."

In 1994, Michael Barone wrote an article in U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT in which he was the first to suggest that Republicans could actually gain the 40 seats then needed to capture a majority in the House of Representatives. This year, the results of the generic ballot polling, plus astounding polling results that show numerous attractive Democratic incumbent congressmen trailing their Republican opponents all across America, lead Mr. Barone to believe that a sea change of major proportions will take place in the House of Representatives elections in November.

If such a major shift occurs, Republicans would likely win not only the hotly contested congressional races such as the race between incumbent Travis Childers and Republican challenger Alan Nunnelee in Mississippi 1, but Republicans would also likely sweep aside such long-time Bluedog Democrat stalwarts such as incumbent Gene Taylor in Mississippi 4 as well.

On this past Sunday's talk show, FOX NEWS SUNDAY, Bill Kristol predicted that Republicans will pick up as many as 60 seats in the House races in November, 2010. I believe Kristol read Michael Barone's article in REAL CLEAR POLITICS before making such a prediction.

MISSISSIPPI'S 2011 ELECTIONS

2010-08-02T14:55:00.000-07:00

In a recent column in the Jackson, Mississippi, Clarion Ledger (July 21, 2010) ("Will Legislature reassert dominance after Barbour era?"), longtime journalist Sid Salter addressed an interesting and relevant issue that has not previously been discussed publicly this year in Mississippi, although it has without doubt been discussed privately among potential candidates and others. While many of Mississippi's political pundits are focusing on the upcoming "beauty contest" (the Mississippi Governor's race), the role of the tea parties in the upcoming Congressional elections, or whether or not Haley Barbour will pull the trigger and run for President, I believe that Sid has put his finger on the single-most important issue facing Mississippians in the Magnolia State's 2011 statewide elections. How that issue is decided will shape the philosophical direction that Mississippi will take in the next four to eight years on the great issues of the day - Medicaid and Medicare; funding for public education; eminent domain and the role of government in economic development; taxation; crime; and generally the role of government in our everyday lives.
Sid is correct when he says that "[h]istorically, the Legislature has operated as the strong dominant policy maker in state government and the governor served in a more ceremonial and opinion-making role." This was certainly true in the twentieth century when virtually every Governor that held office, along with many scholars and others, proclaimed that the power of the Governor's office should be strengthened. In fact, some of Mississippi's most distinguished scholars and leaders during those years called for a constitutional convention in Mississippi with the express goal of doing away with certain elective offices and making them subject to gubernatorial appointment. In short, the Governor and the executive branch of state government appeared to be totally over-matched by the powerful legislative branch, which held the purse strings to the coffers housing taxpayers' dollars. Year after year, regardless of who held the Governor's office, the legislative branch was dominant, and its leadership was unified.
This political reality slowly began to change, however, with the coming of the two-party system in Mississippi. As more and more Republicans were elected to the state Legislature, the opportunity for conservatives to gather together and to support common goals increased. The real legislative shift, however, has taken place in the twenty-first century. In 2001, there were 86 Democrats in the Mississippi House of Representatives, 33 Republicans and 3 Independents; while in the State Senate, there were 34 Democrats and 18 Republicans. Today, the House still has 72 who call themselves Democrats but there are also 50 Republicans, who have formally organized themselves, adopted by-laws, and elected a floor leader, a conference chairman, and other officers in a manner similar to the structure of the Republican Conference in the Congressional House of Representatives. There is a real chance that there will be enough Republicans in 2011 to elect a GOP Speaker of the House.
In the State Senate, where Republican Lieutenant Phil Bryant presides, there are currently 27 Democrats, but there are also 25 Republicans. During the Barbour Administration years, Republicans have controlled the Senate with the help of a few conservative Democrats.
During the eight years of the Barbour Administration, Republicans in the Mississippi Legislature have basically agreed on most issues and maintained party discipline. In so doing, they greatly enhanced the power of the Governor. Whereas Governors were confronted in past years by a united legislative branch intent on holding tightly to the reins of state government and minimizing the power of the Governor's office, battles in state government suddenly shifted after 2001 to more healthy ideological battles between political parties on pocket book issues rather than endless fights between the Legislature and the Governor over which of the two branches of government would dominate the political landscape.
Since 2001, the elected leaders of both political parties have had healthy and constructive debates on public issues such as taxes, education, and health care; and the people have been better off for it. As a result, our citizens have been better informed and have not been distracted by side issues that have held the state back for generations. In essence, the emergence of a healthy two-party system in Mississippi has silenced any discussion of a need for a constitutional convention to enhance the power of the Governor or the executive branch.
The question has been raised as to whether a Republican Governor elected in 2011 could maintain party discipline among the Republican legislators in the years ahead. In his column, Sid asks a good question: "Does Mississippi want a strong governor like Barbour -- or a more traditional governor like former Governors Ray Mabus or Bill Waller, Sr.?" A second question might be whether the people want to continue to have a healthy two-party system in the Legislature, which will surely result in a strong support group in the legislative branch for whoever is elected Governor. The answer to these questions will determine the direction Mississippi will take in 2011 and beyond. One would think that Republicans have the advantage in 2011 - unless they get over-confident and begin fighting among themselves

DO WE WANT IT BADLY ENOUGH?

2010-07-06T14:43:00.000-07:00

As we approach November, 2010, the nation's attention is beginning to turn to the Congressional elections which will take place on November 2nd. Here in Mississippi, two of our four Congressional seats are being hotly contested - both presently held by Democrats. In Mississippi's First Congressional District, Travis Childers, the Blue Dog incumbent who was elected two years ago to replace Republican Roger Wicker after Wicker was appointed to the United States Senate, is facing a strong challenge from Republican State Senator Alan Nunnelee. Childers is a former Chancery Court Clerk, a powerful position in county government in Mississippi, and he hails from rural Prentiss County, near Tennessee in the extreme northeast corner of the State and in the foothills of Appalachia. Nunnelee comes from the more urban and Republican-leaning City of Tupelo, which is located just south of Prentiss County and also in the northeastern portion of the Congressional District.

Childers is a friend and associate of the Speaker of the Mississippi House of Representatives, Billy McCoy, who also is a native of Prentiss County. Childers is also the logical heir of longtime former First District Congressman and populist Jamie Whitten, who was known for "bringing home the bacon" for his constituents while at the same time attacking the "left-wingers" in Washington. Nunnelee, on the other hand, is a fiscal conservative who has served effectively as chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee in the Mississippi Legislature during trying economic times; and, in cooperation with Governor Haley Barbour and Lt. Governor Phil Bryant, has helped the State balance its budget and preserve its rainy-day fund while at the same time preserved and increased Medicaid payments for the needy and enacted increased spending for education. Just as important, Nunnelee apparently has a united Republican Party behind him as he approaches the general election and has received the endorsements of his two opponents in the Republican Primary, who he defeated without a run-off after a spirited primary election contest. Mississippi Republicans will recall that Childers, the Democrat, won the Congressional seat to replace Wicker two years ago, after a bitter Republican Primary in which the Republican nominee failed to receive the endorsement of his defeated Republican opponent.

This year, Republicans as well as Tea Party conservatives, appear to be lining up behind Nunnelee although the National Rifle Association has endorsed Childers. On the other hand, Democrats also appear to be united in backing Childers, as evidenced by a recent fund-raising invitation sent out for Childers by a group of traditionally Democratic sponsors, including the Second District Congressman, Bennie Thompson who has great influence over the substantial African-American vote in the First Congressional District.

Recent polls have been published which show that Nunnelee presently leads Childers by less than 10 points, but most observers understand that this Congressional race is only just now beginning, although the candidates have been campaigning for months. What is clear at this juncture is that the majority of the citizens of the First District are upset and concerned about the economy and the future of America in general. Many now link Childers with President Obama, which is a plus for Nunnelee at the present time.

The race between Nunnelee and Childers is now clearly on the radar screens of both national parties and their Congressional campaign committees; and both candidates will be well financed as they campaign to the wire on November 2nd. Democrats understand that they must hold on to Congressional seats currently occupied by Blue Dog Democrats such as Childers, and must give him some latitude to take public positions on issues such as health care and gun rights that will appeal to conservative voters, without threatening to strip him of party seniority benefits. On the other hand, Republicans understand that if they are to recapture a Congressional majority in the House of Representatives and stop the out-of-control spending and government bailouts that have been a part of the Obama agenda, they simply must win districts where the voters are basically conservative. Simply put, if Republicans cannot win this year in the First Congressional District in today's environment, the District is likely to remain in the hands of the Democrats for the foreseeable future.

In my judgment, the race between a Nunnelee and Childers will be close and a "trend-setter" nationally. If Childers wins, look for the Democrats to lose some seats in the House of Representatives but retain substantial control with Nancy Pelosi re-elected as Speaker of the House (with the support of Childers). If Nunnelee wins, look for the Democrats nationally to have a long night.

If Mississippi Republicans can stay energized and united in the months ahead, Nunnelee should win this election. However, it is important that Republicans have a strong voter turnout in Tupelo and the northeast Mississippi area surrounding populous Lee County, where many self-styled "yellow dog Democrats" reside (citizens who would vote for a Democrat even if the candidate is a yellow dog). Just as important, it is crucial for Nunnelee that Republicans have a strong turnout further west in populous DeSoto County as well, which enjoys the fourth largest population in Mississippi and where most of its citizens work in Memphis and look to the Memphis media for their news. On occasions in the past and particularly in Presidential elections, voters in DeSoto County have turned out to vote in tremendous numbers and with substantial Republican majorities. In other elections, without national impact, voter turnout in DeSoto County has often been abysmal.

Voter turnout will likely determine the winner of the Nunnelee-Childers race on November 2nd. If Republicans want to win badly enough, this is our chance to take back the seat we should not have lost in 2008.

THE APPROPRIATORS

2010-06-15T07:43:00.000-07:00

In May, 2010, three members of Congress were beaten in their bids for re-election within their own Party elections - a Republican Senator from Utah, a Democratic Congressman from West Virginia, and a Republican-turned-Democrat in Pennsylvania. Among them, they served 76 years in Congress (their fathers served another 42); and they all had one thing in common: They were members of an Appropriations Committee. It is also noteworthy (and shocking to some) that House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-MI) suddenly decided to retire from Congress after a career of 41 years, rather than face the energetic campaign of a young Republican in his district.

In his recent article ("The Gathering Revolt Against Government Spending") in the EXAMINER, political analyst Michael Barone reminds us that on Capitol Hill, there is an old saying that there are three parties in Washington - Democrats, Republicans, and appropriators. However, Barone also takes note of these recent developments and concludes that "pork is not kosher" in this election year.

Barone correctly states that we have been told for many years that American voters are "ideologically conservative" and "operationally liberal" . . . another way of saying that they tend to oppose government spending in the abstract but tend to favor spending on particular programs. Anyone who has had any experience with county government knows this to be true. In my home county in Mississippi, we have not one but two paid lobbyists (one Democrat and one Republican), whose job it is, in part, to arrange face time with the members of our congressional delegation for county officials in search of funds to finance the latest road projects, water and sewer treatment facilities, etc.

In years past, Vice-President Walter Mondale once stated on a campaign trip to Mississippi that the State's two powerful Senators (Eastland and Stennis) were very even-handed in their efforts to control the flow of federal dollars to proposed worthwhile capital improvement projects across the nation. Mondale joked that their formula for dispensing federal funds was simple: one-half for Mississippi and one-half for the rest of the country.

Spending by the federal government on local projects began in a big way during the Great Depression and has thrived ever since. As stated by Barone, past rebellions against fiscal policies have concentrated on taxes rather than spending - such as the California tax revolt in the 1970s that led to Ronald Reagan's popular tax cuts after he became President. However, spending cuts did not follow under Reagan as he led the effort to dramatically increase the defense budget to confront the Soviet military buildup. Likewise, Bill Clinton's tax increases led to a Republican takeover and tax cuts at both the federal and state level. However, spending boomed under George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11.

Unlike previous rebellions against fiscal policies, the fiscal revolt in 2010 appears to be focused on the spending policies of the Obama Democrats. Barone says that what we are observing is "a spontaneous rush of previously inactive citizens into political activity . . . in response to the vast increases in federal spending that began with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the fall of 2008; and accelerated with the Obama Democrats' stimulus package, budget and health care bills." It is a fact that federal spending is rising from about 21 percent to 25 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is high in historic terms.

The defeat of the three appropriators from both parties and the retirement of Congressman Obey is sending us a message this election year. Will Republicans come forward with a bold plan to roll back government spending? Barone tells us that "the natural instinct of politicians is to avoid anything bold." He points out that the conservatives in the recent British elections were faced with similar issues, but they were skittish about proposing spending cuts. The result was the conservatives in Britain fell short of the absolute majority they expected in their May 6 elections.

In the 2010 congressional elections, where Republicans likewise have high hopes, the issue may be whether Republicans will come up with a bold specific plan to roll back the spending of the Obama Democrats. I believe the voters are looking for such a plan, and Republicans need to supply it.

POST NOTE: I note with sadness the passing of Emett Barfield, a great man of faith and a deep religious thinker, who served as the pastor over the years of such diverse figures as William Winter and Clark Reed. I only came to know Emett well during his later years, but, like so many others, I am grateful that our paths crossed. R.I.P.

MEMORIAL DAY

2010-06-01T13:49:00.000-07:00

Three years ago, I received an invitation from the Office of the President to attend a Memorial Day breakfast at the White House, just before the formal ceremonies that would later take place that day with President Bush speaking at Arlington National Cemetery and placing a wreath at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The invitation stated that I could bring a guest, and I asked my son to go with me. Both of us had attended college on U.S. Army ROTC scholarships and spent time in the military. My wife and I had been to the White House before on a number of occasions, but this invitation seemed special - and it was.

As the appointed day drew near, we flew to Washington and checked into our hotel the night before, near the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. The next morning, we got up early to make sure that we would not be late. Then, in eager anticipation, we walked on a beautiful sunny day to the White House, passing by the famous Willard Hotel where many Presidents had visited and stayed overnight, including Abraham Lincoln. We also passed by the Office of the U.S. Treasury.

When we arrived at the east gate to the White House, we took our places in line to go through security, and I saw one familiar face - the Republican National Committeeman from California, who I knew to have a military background. Suddenly, I realized why I had been invited to this marvelous occasion - because, like my friend from California, I was a member of the Republican National Committee who also had served in the military. How honored I felt on that morning to be an American and to be, with my son, among the special few to be invited to the White House and to formally honor those who had made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve freedom in our county.

Once inside the White House, we passed by easily recognizable famous paintings of former Presidents and First Ladies; and the Marine Band, in dress uniform, was softly playing patriotic music. In the State Dining Room, we enjoyed making our selection for a light breakfast, laid out before us, cafeteria-style, by the White House chef. Then we enjoyed meeting Americans from all over this great land who were there to honor the fallen. Those attending included the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and many high ranking Admirals, Generals, elected officials, as well as a number of enlisted personnel.

We thoroughly enjoyed the privilege of meeting and visiting with several Congressional Medal of Honor recipients who proudly displayed their medals. Every one of those Medal of Honor recipients which we met, to a man, were soft-spoken, unassuming, and thoroughly authentic American heroes who symbolized what is great about America. We also met, there in the White House under the portraits of George and Martha Washington, a number of invitees dressed in motorcycle outfits; and we learned that they were the members of the famous motorcycle organization that attend funerals of our fallen soldiers across America. When necessary, with their motorcycles, they drown out the dissident voices of those who attend military funerals with the intent of making publicized statements of protest against a war that the United States is involved in.

The morning was complete when my son and I had our pictures taken with George and Laura Bush. Later, the President made a stirring address at Arlington in defense of liberty and the debt all Americans owe to their fallen soldiers. We, along with those that attended the breakfast, were filled with pride at the accomplishments of our defenders; and we were filled with the resolve that we indeed must remain steadfast in our defense of liberty, both at home and abroad.

I read that President Obama failed to attend the Memorial Day ceremony this year at Arlington National Cemetery; and he chose instead to go to Chicago, Illinois, to spend time with friends and family. He did mark the Memorial Holiday with remarks at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, located about an hour outside Chicago.

It is my hope that, in the future and throughout his presidency, the President will chose to once again attend the Memorial Day ceremonies at Arlington, a place of tremendous symbolism. Erick Erickson of CNN stated that "going to Arlington to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknowns has . . . everything to do with . . . showing some basic respect to the men and women, alive and dead, who have actually kept us free." I agree, particularly during wartime.

RUBEL PHILLIPS, GIL CARMICHAEL AND JACK REED

2010-05-20T13:16:00.000-07:00

I was pleased, recently, to attend the Second Annual Pioneer Dinner of the Mississippi Republican Party in Jackson. It was a grand affair and was attended by in excess of 700 members of the Party faithful, as well as the family and friends of those being honored that evening. The Honorees were the seven men who had received the Republican nomination for Governor of Mississippi in the modern era (since the 1950's, during which the modern two party system in Mississippi began to emerge with the formation of "Democrats for Eisenhower"). Former nominees Gil Carmichael (1975, 1979); Leon Bramlette (1983); Jack Reed (1983; and present Governor Haley Barbour (2003, 2007) were in attendance. Only Rubel Phillips (1963, 1967); the late Governor Kirk Fordice (1991, 1995); and Congressman Mike Parker (1999), were unable to attend.

My wife and I were privileged to sit between Gil Carmichael and Jack Reed at the dinner; and the contributions that both made to the development and present success of the modern Mississippi Republican Party were significant. It is a noteworthy footnote of Mississippi history that when Gil was running for the U.S. Senate in the early 1970's, against Senator Jim Eastland (the powerful chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee), Vice President Spiro Agnew came to Jackson to endorse the candidacies of then- congressional candidates Thad Cochran and Trent Lott; but on the instructions of President Nixon, he refused to endorse the immensely popular Gil Carmichael, who was required to remain at Republican Party headquarters, during the endorsement festivities which were held two blocks away in front of the Old Capitol Building. Gil stood tall among Mississippi Republicans then and he is still an icon today. His fine son, who resides in Meridian, Mississippi, followed Gil's example and served effectively on the Republican State Executive Committee for a number of years.

Jack Reed was a highly respected and very influential state and community leader when he became the standard bearer for the Republican Party in 1987. Whereas prior to that time the growth of the State Party had been centered primarily in the Jackson area, large municipalities, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast, Jack brought new organized growth to the Party from North Mississippi and the foothills of Appalachia.

Jack's opponent in the 1987 Governor's race was the highly visible State Auditor, Ray Mabus, who had successfully spearheaded the widely publicized federal and state investigation called "operation pretense". Operation Pretense resulted in federal convictions of numerous county elected officials who engaged in fraud and received "kick backs" in exchange for favors to their constituents.

Although Jack had never previously run for any elective office, he was an effective campaigner and was able to raise the necessary funds to wage a credible campaign against his highly-favored and much more well known Democratic opponent. He ran as a successful business and community leader with a strong vision for education, and he finished the race by receiving an astonishing 47% of the vote, the highest percentage of votes received by any Republican candidate for Governor at that time in a relatively low-key race.

In retrospect, Jack Reed's strong showing in 1987 was a signal to thoughtful political observers that there was, for the first time, a "third rail" in Mississippi politics. A legitimate two-party system was emerging in the state. By 1987, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott had been elected to Congress, and Jack Reed proved that a progressive, successful businessmen who espoused conservative Republican principles had a real chance of being elected to statewide office. The old one-party system comprised of segregationists, "Mississippi Democrats", and moderates was on its way out. It is noteworthy that Kirk Fordice defeated Ray Mabus and became Mississippi's first Republican Governor in 1991.

Jack Reed remains as a highly successful and influential community and state leader today. His son is the Republican Mayor of Tupelo.

The principal Honoree at the 2010 Pioneer Dinner was Rubel Phillips, Mississippi's first Republican modern day nominee for Governor in 1963, who was ill and could not attend. I was in college in 1963 and well remember Rubel's campaign slogan: "Kayo the Kennedys". He knew then what we Republicans need to remember today, which is that the vestiges and roots of the old depression-era Democratic Party remain strong and that Mississippi Republicans must tie their Democratic opponents to the ultra-liberal policies of the National Democratic Party and not allow their local opponents to "run to the right" before they go to Washington to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rubel was a true Pioneer of the Mississippi Republican Party. He was the first to "step up" in his race for Governor and publicly put his economic interests and his reputation on the line for a cause greater then himself. He was and is a great man, who has to this day remained active in the Mississippi Republican Party. We Mississippi Republicans owe him, and we owe him big.

THE PATRIOT'S GUIDE

2010-04-30T14:39:00.000-07:00

In this period of great upheaval and when (according to a new Pew Poll, dated April 22, 2010) just 22% of Americans say that they trust the federal government to do what is right most of the time, many of our fellow citizens are asking what they can do to relieve their frustrations and help their country rebound during this difficult period. I believe that this would be good time for my fellow Mississippians and my fellow Americans to read and become familiar with “The Patriot’s Guide – What YOU Can Do for Your Country.” This Guide can be found in more detail at Heritage.org, a website of The Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that does so much to create and promote innovative conservative ideas and solutions to America’s problems. I recommend The Patriot’s Guide to you, and I present it, in part, to you below in abbreviated form:

GET INVOLVED

1. Practice The Virtues of Self Governance: a) be a responsible citizen; b) Care for your family; c) Practice your faith and defend your religious liberty; d) Join organizations and volunteer in your local community; e) Start a business and invest in America.
2. Voice Your Opinion: a) Vote; b) Write letters and comment online; c) Contact your elected officials; d) Call radio shows; e) Participate in local town-hall meetings, tea party activism and local assemblies.
3. Encourage Discussion: a) Start a blog or Web site; b) challenge liberals with fact-based arguments; c) Encourage the media to represent conservative principles; d) Encourage candidates and elected representatives to learn more about conservative ideas; e) Get conservative editorials and letters in your local newspaper; f) Support teachers, educational programs, and schools that teach the truth about America and its principles.
4. Spread the Word: a) Talk to your family and friends; b) Join social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter; c) Bring issues you care about to your civic, social, church, or business groups; d) Celebrate America's heritage and distribute pocket Constitutions.
5. Join the Conservative Movement: a) Support think tanks and institutions fighting for conservative principles and policies; b) If you are a student, apply for an internship, such as the year-round program at the Heritage Foundation. These programs are designed to foster young leaders and help them grow as part of the larger conservative movement.

REDISCOVER THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY

1. We Still Hold These Truths: The future of liberty depends on reclaiming America's first principles. Read "We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future", a powerful overview of those principles - how they developed, what they mean, and the debate over their status today. Get a copy of the study guide that accompanies the book, appropriate for self-study, as a teaching manual or as the basis for a discussion group.
2. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution: Free citizens must understand the extent of their rights and the constitutional limits on the powers of government. Get "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution", an easy to understand line-by-line examination of the Framers' Constitution and its contemporary meaning.
3. Reading the Right Books: Keep reading and learning! "Reading the Right Books" is an annotated bibliography of thoughtful books (on history, politics, literature, economics, statesmanship, religion, public policy, and modern conservative thought) recommended as a guide for intelligent, conservative-minded readers who want to prepare themselves for a public life of thought and action.

FOLLOW THE IMPORTANT ISSUES OF THE DAY

1. Stay Informed: a) Go to Thomas.gov and review pending legislation; b) Track local issues with organizations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council or the State Policy Network; c) Follow several organizations on Facebook and Twitter so you can get all sides to every story.
2. Find the Organization That is Right for you: There are many conservative organizations out there. Decide what issues matter most to you, and then support the appropriate institution. Check out www.policyexperts.org to help narrow your search.
3. Go to Heritage.org: a) Sign up for the Morning Bell at Foundry.org; b) The Foundry blog at Heritage promotes conservative policies and principles by marrying the best in public policy research with every day's current events; c) Read and share Heritage Fact Sheets, which give overviews of the complex issues of our day; and d) InsiderOnline.org maintains a searchable database of policy research, publications, and legal actions throughout the nation.

Time is short, but there is still plenty of time to make a difference before the November congressional elections. I think the Patriot’s Guide is an excellent roadmap as to what Americans can do to help their country leading up to election day.

CONFEDERATE HISTORY MONTH

2010-04-20T07:55:00.000-07:00

While I was in Italy a few days ago, Republicans held a highly successful Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, which was attended by many enthusiastic Tea Partiers; and GOP Governor Robert McDonnell of Virginia issued a state proclamation celebrating April as Confederate History Month, which drew immediate criticism for his failure to mention slavery in his proclamation honoring “the sacrifices of Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens.” During that same period, Haley Barbour, Mississippi’s Republican Governor and Chairman of the National Republican Governors’ Conference, appeared on CNN and defended Governor McDonnell’s remarks, stating that the basis for the criticism of the Governor of Virginia was “not significant” and did not “amount to diddly”.

All of this activity among Southern Republicans was apparently too much for NEW YORK TIMES op-ed columnist Frank Rich, who on April 18, 2010, took dead aim and published a withering broadside attack on Tea Party conservatives in general and Republicans in particular. First, Frank mocked those who defended against the avalanche of charges that Tea Party activists and Sarah Palin are racist; and who, by using veiled racist language and inciting words like “reload”, are “animating anti-Obama hotheads like those who packed assault weapons at presidential town meetings on health care last summer.” Frank went on to imply that “conservative leaders” who remain silent, egg-on such extremism and “pander to the Tea Party-Glen Beck base.”

Then, in an attempt to justify his claims of Tea Party or Republican racism, Frank offered indisputable proof of his claim by reporting that (gasp) Virginia Governor McDonnell “had issued a state proclamation celebrating April as Confederate History Month”. Frank referred to it as a “Dixiecrat proclamation”, which he said (in all fairness) “MIGHT have been a staff-driven gaffe rather than a deliberate act of racial provocation.” (Emphasis added).

Finally, Rich paid his respects to the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference (which he stated was “in full cry”) by stating that there were no African American, Hispanic, or Asian Americans in attendance other than “the usual GOP tokens – J. C. Watts, Bobby Jindal, and Michael Steele, only one of them (Jindal) holding public office.” To top it off, Frank criticized the opening night speakers at the conference (and implied that they were racist) for their failure to even mention Hurricane Katrina; and he excoriated Governor Barbour for later praising President Bush’s recovery efforts in Mississippi and criticizing the bumbling local hurricane recovery efforts in Louisiana, led by then-Governor Blanco and other Democratic officials.

In recent days, it has become apparent that the increasingly vocal left-wing media pundits like Frank Rich, supported by former President Clinton and the Congressional Democrats, have a national strategy leading directly to the November Congressional Elections. Their goal is to maintain Democratic control of the Congress by convincing the broad independent base of the American electorate that Republican candidates for Congress are either racist or extremists themselves, or that their base of support is racist or extremist. This is a clever strategy that has been used many times by Democrats in different ways to frighten American voters or make them feel guilty for supporting Republicans (and in this case, the Tea Parties). There is no doubt that the vast majority of Americans, north, south, east or west, do not wish to see themselves as racist.

In my recent post, (“The Gathering Storm” – April 4, 2010) I wrote that in order for Republicans to win in November, there must exist a strong and unified coalition of “economic” Republicans (primarily interested in economic issues) and “social” Republicans (primarily – but not exclusively – interested in maintaining traditional family values in America). Independent voters and many Republicans north of the Mason-Dixon Line have indisputably been susceptible to Democratic charges of Republican extremism. Therefore, as we move forward toward November in an attempt to wrest control of the Congress away from President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and their followers, Republicans should be sensitive to the strategy of the Democrats to look for and trumpet to the media any possible utterance by a Republican or Tea Party leader that might be construed by someone to be racist or extremist, no matter how tenuous, as a part of the overall Democrat strategy to divide Republicans and put Independents on a guilt trip.

On the other hand, Republicans, and particularly Southern Republicans, should not be afraid to stand up for their beliefs and values, including the fact that Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were storied American heroes, who, within the context of the times in which they lived, chose to defend their home state of Virginia during the great and tragic American Civil War. In the context of the times in which they lived, Lee and Jackson were no different from their fellow Virginians, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (as well as Ulysses S. Grant from Illinois for that matter) – they were all slaveholders who desired for the abhorrent and inhuman system of slavery to end. As any rational historian and American knows, the issues surrounding the American Civil War and American History are complicated, and in our words, we should always stress those things that we agree on, rather than those things that divide us when it comes to matters of race.

In a broader context, Republicans should continue to make diligent efforts to nurture, encourage, and recognize the growing number of Republican African Americans (like Kim Waide, a radio talk-show host and Tea Party leader in Jackson, Mississippi) who subscribe to conservative principles. With their help, maybe we can hold on to the principles that made our country great and a beacon of hope for the rest of the world.

THE GATHERING STORM

2010-04-05T07:08:00.000-07:00

As I head to Italy for two weeks, the Democrats in Congress are celebrating their victory and the passage of the historic new health care legislation. However, they seem (at least on the surface) to be missing the adverse deep and heartfelt reaction that is settling in among the American people as they begin to face the social and economic upheaval that is being forced upon them and their children.

My old friend, John Eames, who moved to the United States from England over twenty-five years ago to get away from British socialism and has been a recent contributor to this blog, is deeply frustrated with the economic consequences of Obamacare. I recently visited with my good friend and a great American, Jim Burnett, who is the Republican National Committeeman from Arkansas and is gravely ill in a hospital in Little Rock. Jim told me that Republicans now have an excellent chance to take back the Senate seat in November which is held by the Democrats. My sources also tell me that the “Monday Meetings” in Manhattan (a meeting held each week composed of fiscally conservative Republicans in New York City) are now attended by record numbers easily reaching into the hundreds; and the New York Republican Party is experiencing a rebirth of sorts under strong new leadership. Republicans in Illinois and California sense that they have a real chance to capture the Senate seat once held by Senator Obama and (gasp) even the seat held by the ultraliberal Senator Barbara Boxer. And while Democrats refer to those who attend Tea Party events as “narrow minded…nut jobs” or “wing nuts”, the Tea Parties are organizing. I was recently sent a copy of the recently adopted by-laws of a tea party organization in North Mississippi which affiliates with a national tea party organization. It was very detailed and the passion was evident.

Even more telling to me as an indication of the political unrest in our country is an email that I recently received from a very responsible and successful businessman who, to my knowledge, has never been involved in any organized political activity. He informed me that in order to quell the very deep anger he was experiencing, he wanted not only to contribute financially to defeat the Democrats, but he also wanted to take a leave of absence from his business and become involved, day to day, in one of the congressional races around the country where a Republican had a chance to replace a Democrat. He was willing to do whatever was needed – including licking postage stamps.

This type of far-reaching reaction to the President’s health care legislation is significant to me. I have stated in the past that the Republican Party is basically composed of two groups. The “fiscal Republicans” are primarily concerned with economic issues, and want low taxes, minimal government control, and a free market economy. Then there are the “social Republicans”, who are primarily concerned with social issues; are generally pro-life and want to maintain traditional family values. It has been my experience that when these two basic Republican groups are divided or are not easily working together in a given election contest, Republicans usually lose the election. On the other hand, when fiscal and social Republicans are energized and working together, they are hard to beat.

I believe that as we speak, we are witnessing a gathering storm. There is no doubt that Republicans of all types are angry and frustrated as they watch the U. S. Congress, top-heavy with Democrats, attempt to ram though to passage social and economic measures that are abhorrent to them. Social and fiscal Republicans are suddenly of common purpose, while Democrats in Congress are on the defensive and know that they have passed a flawed health care bill that was opposed by a majority of Americans.

Karl Rove tells us that the Democrats will be disappointed if they believe that passage of the health care reform bill will help them politically, because Obamacare only helps a small number of people in the short run and everyone’s insurance premiums will rise due to new mandates and changes in insurance regulations in 2011 and 2014. I agree. Look for big Republican gains in the Congress after the November, 2010, elections if the fiscal and social Republicans stay together. I will look forward to visiting with you again when I return from Italy in two weeks. Arrivederci!

THE TOOTHLESS BLUEDOGS

2010-03-23T06:13:00.000-07:00

As I went about my normal activities on a typical Sunday morning, it seemed that everywhere I went, I was confronted by anxious and angry people who understood that a monumental event was about to take place that would change the course of the nation forever. Many people between church and Sunday school at the Grace Chapel Presbyterian Church were deeply offended because the vote in the Congress on nationalized health care was to take place on a Sunday. Others were concerned about the tremendous debt and tax burden that was about to be placed on their children and grandchildren. Still others were outraged by the procedural maneuvers that were taking place to make it appear that Democratic congressmen were voting against Obamacare when in fact they would vote for it. But to a man and woman they were uniformly worried about the socialistic direction that the country was taking and were outraged at Mississippi's two supposedly conservative "Blue
Dog" Democratic congressmen, Travis Childers and Gene Taylor

On March 19, 2010, when it became apparent that Speaker Nancy Pelosi had in hand, through various back-room deals, the sufficient 216 votes to adopt the Senate approved version of nationalized health care, Childers and Taylor finally issued weak and tepid statements saying that they would oppose the national health care legislation pushed by the Democrats, thus attempting to appear to their constituents that they were trying to uphold conservative principals and support the views of the voters of their congressional districts. Childers, who is facing a tough re-election challenge from Republicans, issued a carefully worded statement saying that he is "deeply concerned about the legislation's large price tag and the absence of sufficiently strong language to prohibit funding of abortion." Taylor said the country can't afford a new federal health insurance program . . . "[w]ith the national debt nearing $12 trillion and projected to grow far into the future . . . ." Incredibly, according to Mississippi's CLARION LEDGER, both stated that "neither Democratic leaders nor administrative officials" had tried to sway them to vote for the landmark health care overhaul.

Childers and Taylor tried mightily to appear to their constituents that they had "stood up" against Nancy Pelosi (who they had both voted for in the current term of Congress when she was elected Speaker) and had kept faith with their constituents in Mississippi who overwhelmingly opposed Obamacare. However, the people who talked to me were not fooled by the thinly-veiled charade put on by Childers and Taylor. They knew that, throughout the highly publicized and stormy debate over nationalized health care that has been going on for months, both Childers and Taylor have been missing in action and showed no leadership at all on the issue. They knew that in the early stages of the health care debate when congressmen returned to their districts to hold "town meetings" and had to confront angry representatives of newly formed "tea parties", Childers avoided the process altogether and held a "call-in session" instead. And they also know that "Blue Dog" Democrats, while posing as fiscal and social conservatives, either have (like Childers and Taylor) been rendered irrelevant to the congressional process and ignored altogether; or have engaged in routine support of their House leaders through subterfuge - as they did in this case - making it appear that they held out for constraints on abortion but nevertheless voted for the national health care package.
Voters in Mississippi (and I suspect elsewhere) are becoming increasingly aware that congressional Blue Dog Democrats are essentially toothless - and do not bark very much either. As stated by Professor Kenin Unter of the University of Louisiana at Monroe, Childers ". . . needs to vote against health care if he wants to keep his seat." Obviously, Speaker Pelosi gave Childers enough slack on his leash to do so and will allow him to continue to pose as a conservative as long as he keeps voting for her as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

HEALTH CARE - AGAIN

2010-03-15T07:52:00.000-07:00

At one point a few weeks ago, after the special election when Republican Scott Brown was elected to replace the late Edward Kennedy as the Senator from Massachusetts, it appeared that President Obama’s health care bill was dead. However, a decision was made by the President’s men to make a last ditch effort to pass some version of nationalized “health care reform” legislation before the November, 2010, congressional elections. Thus, the debate on what sort of health care we should have in a free society has started anew.

Paul Ryan, the six-term congressman from Wisconsin who has become a leading spokesman for the Republican point of view on health care reform, tells us that

“[u]nder the terms of our constitution, every individual has a right to care for their health, just as they have a right to eat. Their rights are integral to our natural right to life – and it is government’s chief purpose to secure our natural rights. But the right to care for one’s health does not imply that government must provide health care, any more than our right to eat, in order to live, requires government to run the farms and raise the crops.”

In making these statements, Ryan alludes to the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment (“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”). He also indirectly alludes to the Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”).

Congressman Ryan urges with conviction that our Government’s obligation in protecting the health care rights of our citizens would best be met, not by seeking to supply the health care need itself, but by making adjustments in the health care system to unleash competition and choice. In other words, we should reject the health care model promoted by the Obama Administration “in which federal bureaucrats tell us which services are allowed.” We should also reject, he says, “today’s business-government partnership…in which bureaucratized insurance companies monopolize the field in most states.” Instead, we should adopt a health care model “consistent with our constitution in which health care providers compete in a free and transparent market, and in which individual consumers are in control.”

Ryan says that our goal should be to simply reduce health care costs – not to subscribe to the ideology that we should abandon our nation’s traditional free market economic model. In order to reduce health care costs, he advocates and states that:

1. We should end the current discrimination against those who do not get health care insurance from their jobs. “Everyone paying for health care should receive the same tax benefits”;
2. We need “high risk insurance pools” in the states so that (a) those with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage that is not “prohibitively expensive” and (b) so that the costs in non-high-risk pools are stabilized and driven down.
3. We need “portability” – a simple and obvious way to reduce costs. In other words, we need to allow people to purchase health care insurance across state lines – just as they do car insurance and other goods and services.
4. We must establish “transparency” in terms of costs and quality of health care. Ryan tells us that in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, “an MRI can cost between $400 and $4000, and a bypass surgery between $4700 and $100,000.” He says that if consumers are empowered and allowed to compare prices and quality of services, the free market will solve most of our current health care cost problems.

Paul Ryan made these observations in a recent speech at Hillsdale College on January 13, 2010, and they were adapted for Hillsdale’s monthly publication, IMPRIMIS (which in Latin means “In the first place”). I wonder why we do not adopt Ryan’s simple suggestions, especially since President Obama has said that the federal government will go bankrupt if we do not reduce health care costs.

HALEY BARBOUR

2010-03-08T14:05:00.000-08:00

During the past several days, speculation among pundits and others has intensified over who will be the likely Republican nominee to face President Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Newt Gingrich has been on the speaker’s circuit for months, and he has been appearing regularly on Fox News for over two years. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has of late become much more active in his media appearances and in his public pronouncements; and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is clearly running for president. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has his own TV show, while former Governor Sarah Palin has been a contributor on Fox News and recently appeared on Jay Leno’s late-night show, where she gave a stand-up monologue, prompting speculation that she would launch a TV show of her own.

A recent article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL speculated that conservative Texas Governor Rick Perry, fresh from an impressive primary victory in his race for re-election over Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, will surely be called upon to consider a presidential run in 2012 if he wins re-election in November. And this weekend, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah opined that Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Haley Barbour, the term-limited Governor of Mississippi and Chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association, would make “great vice-presidential candidates”.

In truth, it is probable that Perry, Daniels, and Barbour have all contracted some form of “Potomac Fever”, and none of the three would care to evoke the memory of President Calvin (“silent Cal”) Coolidge in the 1920s who, when asked if he would be a candidate for a second term, said:

“I do not choose to run for President in 1928.”

All of those named above have distinguished themselves in the public arena and are qualified to run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Still, based not on sentiment but strictly on the evidence, I believe that the dark horse in the race is Haley Barbour – if he reaches for the brass ring. There are several reasons why I have reached this conclusion:

1. Barbour’s record of accomplishments as Governor of Mississippi and his demonstrated ability to govern are impressive, and he has rightly received widespread praise for his steady and effective performance as Governor during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. During his tenure as Governor, he has been effective in holding the line on taxes and in “getting things done” in the education and Medicaid fields without raising taxes, despite the fact that he has had to deal with a House of Representatives dominated by Democrats. More recently, under the radar, he is effectively dealing with a severe shortfall in his state’s revenues due to the great recession. In a time when Americans are genuinely concerned about the economic well being of the nation, Republicans will be looking for an effective leader who knows how to govern and will stop the nation’s drift toward socialism.

2. As a former Chairman of the Republican National Committee and as Chairman of the national Republican Governor’s Association, Barbour has a national presence and is extremely well thought of among rank and file Republicans. While Chairman of the RNC, he worked effectively with Congressional Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, to implement their “contract for America”, which resulted in a Republican takeover of the U. S. House of Representatives. More recently, as Chairman of the RGA, he has received praise for effectively promoting (and supporting with RGA dollars) a Republican resurgence, resulting in the election of Republican Governors in Virginia and New Jersey. Moreover, he has shown himself to be extremely knowledgeable on the issues, and, perhaps better than any other potential Republican presidential candidate on the scene, able to effectively communicate the Republican point of view in such a way that ordinary people can understand the message.

3. Haley is 62 years old, the perfect age to run for president.

4. Significantly, Governor Barbour has a unique ability that none of the other potential candidates have – that is a populist yet traditional ability to appeal to both wings of the Republican Party: the so-called “economic Republicans” and the “social Republicans” as well. As a former political operative of the Reagan White House and as a Deep South person of faith, he will have no trouble coming across as sincere to Republicans whose first priorities are the social issues and the preservation of traditional American values. On the other hand, he never practiced the politics of exclusion during his tenure with the RNC. Likewise, Barbour should be totally acceptable to economic Republicans who want low taxes, and are concerned about the economy and fiscal responsibility in government. His record of accomplishment as a fiscal conservative is extremely attractive, if not impeccable.

5. Finally, Haley Barbour is a “party person” and is one of our own. He began his work within the Republican Party as the Executive Director of the Mississippi Republican Party and ultimately became Chairman of the RNC. Republicans nationally know Haley Barbour and like him.

Every potential candidate for president has some baggage. It could be argued that Governor Barbour cannot be elected president because he comes from a Deep South state with a troubled history of civil rights problems; and because he will be running against an African American incumbent. It could likewise be argued that his pronounced southern accent might also be a problem. If he does run for president, Haley will be required to face these and other such issues in a series of party primaries throughout the land. My bet, based on past performance, is that if he can raise the necessary funds to compete on equal terms with the other candidates, he will acquit himself quite well.

THE SWING-VOTER

2010-02-28T08:01:00.000-08:00

THE TEA PARTIES

2010-02-21T18:55:00.000-08:00

A fascinating discussion is now going on within Republican circles concerning the future of the tea party movement that is sure to accelerate after former presidential candidate and 74-year-old U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas) won the straw poll of the 2935 votes cast by those who attended the annual conference of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) in Washington, D.C., last week. It is noteworthy that of those voting, 48% were students and 54% of the participants were between the ages of 18 and 25. Still, Paul’s victory, according to CNN’s Peter Hamby, “…might be seen, in part, as a result of his support among anti-establishment Tea Party activists – who turned out in force at this year’s conference and expressed some frustration with the Republican Party.” The final results of the straw poll: Ron Paul-31%; Mitt Romney-22%, ending a three-year winning streak at CPAC; Sarah Palin (who did not attend)- 7%; Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty-6%; and Indiana Rep. Mike Pence at 5%. Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee tied at 4%, while Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour rounded out the field; with 5% voting “other” and 6% “undecided”.

Rep. Paul was described by CNN as “a stalwart foe of government spending” and by Jonathan Martin and Jessica Taylor of the POLITICO as “the libertarian-leaning Texas Republican who ran a quixotic bid for the presidential nomination in 2008….” Both stories on the CPAC election agreed that Paul was “unlikely to be a serious contender for his party’s nomination” or that the CPAC vote would have a “major impact on the 2012 presidential contest.” Still, a majority of those participating (53%) indicated that they were not entirely happy with the field of potential or likely candidates they had to choose from. Thus, discussion of the impact of the tea parties on the upcoming November Congressional elections and the 2012 presidential election will only intensify in the coming months.

Ironically, not one, but TWO thoughtful commentaries concerning the future of the tea parties were published just before the CPAC election – one by Ramesh Ponnuru and Kate O’Beirne of the NATIONAL REVIEW; and the other by Karl Rove in an article appearing in the WALL STREET JOURNAL. In their article (“The Coming Tea Party Elections”), Ramesh and Kate report the results of a poll commissioned by The National Review Institute, in which 6% of those questioned stated that they had “participated” in tea party rallies, and an additional 47% stated that they “generally agree with the reasons for the protests.” Although the subject of critical and condescending remarks by persons of prominence, such as Paul Krugman and David Brooks of the NEW YORK TIMES; and U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D.-Calif.), the NR poll revealed that the tea parties are (1)not driven by racial animus (large numbers approve of Obama’s performance and voted for him in 2008); and (2) are not generally unpopular (57% of the electorate view the tea parties as merely a group “of citizens concerned about the country’s economic future” while only 19% disagreed and considered the tea parties to be an “anti-government fringe organization” driven by “anger” or “concern”. Moreover, 53% of the electorate looks “sympathetically” on the tea parties.

According to NR, most tea party sympathizers and participants are pro-life and their “religious practices are roughly in line with those of the electorate.” Thus, social issues are not likely to cause a division between the tea parties and the Republicans. The same thing appears to be true on economic issues as well. While tea party participants and sympathizers are concerned about the deficit, most are not in favor of cutting the defense budget; and a majority (52 %) wants to “cut taxes to stimulate growth.” Only 7% want to increase taxes to reduce the deficit. Finally, although tea parties are opposed to bailouts of financial firms, a majority are against a new tax on banks that have benefitted from the recent bailout. Significantly, a majority are in favor of cutting taxes on corporations, presumably to make American corporations better able to compete in world markets.

Ramesh and Kate conclude that tea partiers will, as did religious conservatives before them, eventually become “valuable parts of the party’s infrastructure – if Republicans form a productive partnership with them. If Republicans can’t do that, they deserve to go out of business.”

Karl Rove, on the other hand, takes a somewhat different view in his Feb. 18, 2010 WSJ article (“Where the Tea Parties Should Go From Here”):

“The tea parties have made an important splash because they are not yet another auxiliary to the Democratic or Republican parties. Like the pro-life and Second Amendment movements before it, the tea party movement will have a bigger impact if it holds the feet of politicians in both parties to its fire. Each party must know it can win or lose swing tea party voters.”

Karl then voices concern that fringe groups or third party movements will try to “co-opt the tea parties’ good name, which is happening in Nevada…which will only serve to elect opponents of the tea party philosophy of low taxes and fiscal restraint. It could also discredit the tea party movement.” His advice to the tea parties: “keep their distance from any single party and instead influence both parties on debt, spending and an over-reaching federal government.”

These divergent views by respected conservative leaders are fascinating and revealing. After serving almost eight years as a Republican state party chairman and as a county chairman for almost eight years prior to that, I am convinced that a healthy and spirited two-party system is good for America and will prevail in this case if Republicans remain responsive to the views of the tea parties. I also see the logic of Karl’s view that the leadership of the tea parties should ideally remain separate from the Republican leadership, on the Biblical theory that one cannot serve two masters. Whether that is possible will probably be played out on a state-by-state basis. One thing is for sure: most tea partiers and rank and file Republicans are waiting for a new champion with the leadership qualities of Ronald Reagan, adjusted to deal with today’s problems. Hopefully, we will know this candidate when we see him or her, after the “vetting” process that all presidential candidates must go through. But we are looking and waiting.

A ROAD MAP FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE

2010-02-16T15:51:00.000-08:00

In recent weeks, Democrats in Congress have increasingly referred to Republicans as “The Party of No”. By this they mean to say that Congressional Republicans have run out of ideas on how to solve our country’s domestic ills. All they know how to do is say “no” and have no clue on “how to get America moving again.”

Historically, it has been normal for a sitting President to set a domestic agenda and for the opposition party to respond to that agenda. Sometimes, however, the opposition party in Congress sets an agenda of its own, as the Republicans led by Newt Gingrich did in the 1990s, when they adopted their “contract for America” and pledged their allegiance to the principles of the contract if elected during the midterm elections of the first Clinton Administration. Fresh from a victory over Hillary Clinton’s national health care plan, the Republicans clearly defined what they believed in and distinguished their vision for America’s future from the vision of the Democrats. In the process, the Republicans “nationalized” the election and took control of both houses of congress for the first time in many years, because the voters tended to elect their congressmen based on national issues rather than personalities or who could best “bring home the bacon.”

Once again, we Americans find ourselves at a crossroads with midterm elections fast approaching in November. Once again, we have a Democratic administration that has embarked during a severe recession on a massive spending program, purportedly designed to invigorate the nation’s economy. This time, however, I believe that most Americans are genuinely concerned that the huge sums that the government has obligated for its “stimulus package”, together with the projected costs of Obama’s health care plan and other initiatives, will not only result in significantly higher taxes, but will bring us close to a European-style welfare state of dependency – where Americans will receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. In such an economy, double-digit unemployment is the accepted norm, rather than an aberration during hard times.

Many Republicans wonder when some new dynamic Republican leader will emerge with new ideas to address America’s domestic problems. Are Republicans capable of seizing upon the somber and unsettled mood of the electorate and make substantial gains in the November congressional elections? Can Republicans substantially reduce the supermajority which the Democrats presently enjoy in the House and Senate? Can they check the efforts of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who, emboldened by their supermajority, are attempting to move the country, once and for all, past the “tipping point” and create a collective and regulated society from which there is no turning back?

There is at least one such Republican in congress who appears to have a clear vision of what is necessary to solve America’s domestic ills. He is Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee, who has recently introduced in congress his plan – called “A Road Map for America’s Future” – which addresses the nation’s fiscal crisis, as well as tax reform, Medicare, health care, and Social Security issues. Ryan suggests that we have only two simplified income tax rates: (1) 10% for single filers making $50,000 of taxable income or less per year and 10% for joint filers making $100,000 or less as well; (2) 25% on taxable income for single filers making over $50,000 and the same amount for joint filers with a taxable income over $100,000. With the exception of a health care credit and a generous standard deduction and personal exemption not to exceed $39,000 for a family of four, there would be no further tax credits, exclusions or loopholes. Finally, Ryan offers an 8.5% “business consumption tax” to replace our present corporate income tax, so that America’s companies can compete more effectively internationally.

Ryan’s “Road Map” also calls for similar reforms for the nation’s Medicare system, the present health care system, and for Social Security. His goal is to preserve the solvency of Medicare and Social Security and to bring affordable health care to all Americans, without bankrupting the country. In my view, Ryan’s plan has the makings for real solutions to real problems facing Americans, and you may want to contact Congressman Ryan for more information about his “Road Map for America’s Future.”

My advice to Congressional Republicans: do not expect to win back the House and Senate in November, 2010, by employing a defensive, “rope-a-dope” boxing strategy designed to wait for the Democrats to make mistakes and further antagonize the voters. If you want to win and really do something for America, adopt a domestic plan such as Ryan’s plan, and tweak it; poll it; publicize it; and then drive it home to the American people. You will distinguish yourselves from the Democrats; show the voters that you really care and that you are trying to solve their problems. In the process, you will nationalize the November elections – and you will win big.

SARAH PALIN

2010-02-09T10:53:00.000-08:00

Former Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin spoke last week at the “Tea Party Convention” in Nashville and in so doing fully embraced the populist political movement that now has the full attention of the national media and a growing segment of the American people. According to writer and philosopher Larry Anderson, in his February 7, 2010, article in Real Clear Politics (“Populist Constitutionalism and the Tea Parties”),

“The tea parties are a unique populist movement and moment in American history . . . The tea parties have more grass roots movers, shakers, and members, than any populist movement ever seen in our country.”

In his article, Anderson proceeds to compare the tea party movement to other populist movements of the past such as the prohibitionist movement (the “Noble Experiment” that sought to outlaw the production and sale of intoxicating liquor and resulted in the 18th Amendment to the Constitution in 1919); and the 1933 people’s movement to reject black market hoodlums like Al Capone, which resulted in the repeal of the 18th Amendment and the passage of the 21st Amendment. And then, of course, there were the populist politicians: Louisiana Governor Huey Long (who said that we should have “a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage”) during the depression; Governor George Wallace of Alabama (who advocated “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”) and his so-called “populist” American Independent Party in the late 1960s; and populist Ross Perot and his “Reform Party USA” which garnered enough votes to split the electorate, and resulted in the defeat of President George H. W. Bush in his bid for second term (and the election of Bill Clinton, an obscure Democratic Governor of Arkansas).

In my view, Governor Sarah Palin’s populism is different from those mentioned above and is more akin to the populism exhibited by former California Governor Ronald Reagan when he spoke to a young audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 1977, after being narrowly defeated in his bid to become the Republican nominee for President in 1976:

“Reagan called for bringing into the Republican fold those Democrats concerned with ‘social issues – law and order, abortion, using, quota systems – [that] are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic, and religious groups.’ In short, he proposed a fusion between those mercantile and economic interests long associated with the GOP, who were mostly concerned with government regulations, and social conservatives, who believed the fabric of society was also threatened by big, intrusive government. . . . Then Reagan took on the GOP, telling his CPAC audience that the party ‘cannot be one limited to the country-club, big business image that . . . it is burdened with today. The ‘New Republican Party’ I am speaking about is going to have room for the man and woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat.”
(Craig Shirley, Rendezvous with Destiny p. 21).

It is significant to me that in her recent memoir, Going Rogue, Sarah Palin refers, again and again, to Ronald Reagan, [“Ronald Reagan faced an even worse recession. He showed us how to get out of one.” (p. 391)] [“Reagan showed courage when he stayed the course through the long recession of the early 1980s.” (pp. 391-392)] [“Reagan once recalled with amusement that economists in the 1970s never saw a tech boom coming when they made their gloomy forecasts.” (p. 392)].

Palin, as did Reagan nationally, took on the establishment of her own political party on her road to becoming Governor of Alaska, and she speaks of the Gipper when she talks about protecting the homeland: [“And our goal in the War on Terror must be the same as Reagan’s: ‘We won. They lost.’” (p. 393)]

In the last paragraph of her book prior to the Epilogue (p. 395), Sarah Palin says the following:

“The enlightened elites want to tell you to sit down and shut up. But the way forward is to stand and fight. Throw tea parties. March on Capital Hill. Write letters to the editor. Run for local office – you never know where it might lead. And make your voice heard on every single election day, on every single issue. That is your birthright.

Stand now. Stand together. Stand for what is right.”

That kind of language is Reaganesque in tone and powerful in times of stress and turmoil. Reagan was elected because the people were tired of the Carter malaise and because they felt the need for a strong leader whose vision of American was “a shining city on a hill”. I suspect that if the people ever reach the conclusion that Sarah Palin and her brand of Republican populism can thwart Obama’s march toward socialism; and that she has what it takes to protect the homeland without getting us into World War III, she will be tough to beat in the race to determine the next Presidential nominee of the Republican Party.

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

2010-02-01T15:06:00.000-08:00

In his nationally televised State Of The Union Address last week, the President of the United States, in what should be characterized as a shameful act of cowardice, publicly condemned a recent decision of the nation’s Supreme Court, six of whose members were seated in front of him on the front row on the floor of the House of Representatives. These justices, who rarely appear or speak at public events except in judicial settings, were only attending the State Of The Union Address as a courtesy to the President and were following a long tradition of displaying to the nation the solidarity of our three branches of government. Nevertheless, the President called out the justices, and his exact words were:

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill the helps to right this wrong!”

Even before the President finished these remarks (which had been released to the media and to the Congress only a few minutes prior to his speech and after the justices had already arrived) hundreds of Democratic members of Congress, who were seated immediately behind and alongside the justices, stood and wildly cheered the President’s remarks, while the members of the High court sat quietly and endured the remarkable public display of abuse heaped upon them.

Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional law professor at the Georgetown Law Center, in his January 28, 2010, Wall Street Journal article (“Obama Owes the High Court an Apology”), accurately described the scene: “The President fully expected that his hundreds of supporters in the legislative branch would stand and cheer, while the justices remained seated and silent, unable to respond even afterward . . . . In short, the head of the executive branch ambushed six members of the judiciary, and called upon the legislative branch to deride them publicly.”

Not only was this presidential and legislative behavior disrespectful, but it was cowardly as well, because President Obama knew that members of the Supreme Court could not publicly defend themselves on that occasion and they can only comment on their decisions through their writings and in other judicial settings.

It is ironic that since the President’s address to Congress, his remarks have been shown to be factually wrong. Instead of reversing “a century of law”, the Court’s decision merely reversed a 1990 decision of the Court that prevented labor unions and domestic corporations, including non-profits, from publicly expressing in the media their views about candidates within 60 days of an election. In other words, the Court ruled that labor unions and corporations have the same First Amendment free speech rights as do individual citizens. Also, as stated by Mr. Barnett, instead of allowing American elections to be “bankrolled” by “foreign entities”, the Court actually left standing current restrictions on “foreign nationals and entities. Also untouched was a 100-year ban on domestic corporate contributions to political campaigns to which the President was presumably referring erroneously.”

Whether one agrees or disagrees with a ruling of the United States Supreme Court or any court, there is a proper time and place to voice that disagreement, and it is vitally important that our state and federal courts remain totally independent of the executive or legislative branches of government. It is also vitally important that the President of the United States show respect for the independent judicial branch of government and never attempt to intimidate or ridicule the justices where they are present and cannot respond, in a setting such as a state of the union address. Such a public display of presidential arrogance breeds and encourages disrespect for the nation’s highest court, which was created by the founders as a part of our governmental system of checks and balances against unbridled presidential power.

We, here in Mississippi, have recently seen the results of a climate where wealthy attorneys lost respect for the judicial system and naturally concluded that they could intimidate, buy or improperly influence certain judges to their own advantage. (See the recently published book “Kings of Tort”, which is a chronicle of the abuse of the state’s judicial system). We have learned the hard way that prolonged and wide disrespect for the judicial system inevitably leads to the abuse and corruption of that system.

It was remarkable to me that on the night of the State of the Union Address, the only criticism of the President’s shabby treatment of the Supreme Court that I heard from the television commentators came from Juan Williams of Fox News and National Public Radio. He voiced concern that a sitting President would publicly attempt to intimidate another branch of government in such a fashion.

Other commentators focused instead on Justice Alito, who, while remaining silent and not knowing the cameras were on him during the President’s remarks, accurately and in apparent frustration mouthed the words “not true.” As stated by Professor Barnett in his article,

“For those who strongly object to the ruling in Citizens United and still do not see the impropriety of criticizing the Court this way, consider Rep. Joe Wilson’s ‘You lie!’ outburst during the president’s address to a joint session of Congress in September. No one denied the right of a congressman to criticize the accuracy of the president’s remarks. The objection was to the rudeness and disrespect shown the president, for which Mr. Wilson promptly apologized. So too should the president.”

I agree, and still wonder: where was the outrage that should have instantly erupted when the President publicly and cowardly attacked the justices in such a fashion. Is Juan Williams the only public commentator, public official, or member of the media who recognized the dangerous nature of the President’s actions on that night? I hope not.

BARACK OBAMA AND CLEMENT ATTLEE

2010-01-25T14:48:00.000-08:00

In the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s stunning victory in the recent Massachusetts Senate race, many are wondering (and pontificating) on what President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats will do to adjust their message to the American people as they prepare for the midterm Congressional elections looming on the horizon in November, 2010. Will they abandon their efforts to impose a socialistic national health care system upon us and “move to the center”, as President Bill Clinton did in the 1990s? Will Obama and the Democrats back up, change their game plan, and attempt to achieve their goals in stages, a little at a time, or will they try to give us more of the same thing we have been getting during the first year of the Obama administration – massive spending, higher taxes, more government intrusion in our daily lives, and dramatically increased regulation of private businesses, big and small? My best guess: MORE OF THE SAME, although cleverly packaged with a populist message designed to appeal to the great public anger, reflected in Scott Brown’s victory, against corrupt government run amuck and those public and private officials who irresponsibly created high job losses and the tremendous upheaval in the nation’s financial system. Note that in the days following Scott Brown’s victory, the President has been saying that he is ready to “fight” for the American people and now wishes to place new regulations and taxes on the “big banks”.

In the January 23, 2010, issue of POLITICO, Obama’s former campaign manager and senior White House advisor, David Axelrod, is quoted as saying . . . “that there will be ‘no reinventing’ of the President”; and “[t]here is no need to.” He added . . . “we got elected – to push back on the special interests . . . and to build an economy that works for everyone and not just a fortunate few.”

I believe, however, that there is a bigger and darker reason why President Obama and his associates will not change course in their efforts to impose a government controlled economy on the American people. They recognize that if they can hold on to their huge majorities in the Congress and re-elect the President to a second term, they can permanently change the economic landscape in this country and that there will be no turning back. If they lose this unique opportunity during a period of great unrest to impose a European-style economic system on the country, a similar opportunity may not present itself for another generation.

A recent article (“A Most Uncomfortable Parallel”) by Andrew Stuttaford, a contributing online editor for NATIONAL REVIEW, in that magazine’s January 25, 2010 print edition, makes my case. Stuttaford, rather than comparing Obama to FDR, the Messiah, the Anti-Christ, or “harsher still”, to Jimmy Carter, instead compares the President to CLEMENT ATTLEE, the “Labour leader who humiliated Winston Churchill in Britain’s 1945 election. . . .” The author states the 1945 victory by Attlee and the Labour Party, in the aftermath of World War II in which Great Britain and its economy were devastated, was “one of the most sweeping in British history” and permanently changed the landscape of the British economy.

Although Attlee was shy and dull (“as the jibe went, an empty taxi drew up and out stepped Attlee”) the new Prime Minister, like Obama, although “unthreatening”, was “cool and calculating” and the two also “have in common their pasts as ‘community organizers’” in depressed areas. In addition, Attlee, like Obama, recognized the unique opportunity in Britain for “the closest regimentation of the whole nation” and as such “the opportunity for fundamental change of the economic system.” In Britain at the time, “there was an irresistible demand for ‘change’” and it was believed that Britons “could finally turn the page on the bad old days and build the fairer more egalitarian society they felt they deserved.”

Attlee was not concerned over the costs of the proposed new National Health Service and national compulsory insurance for everyone from the cradle to the grave. “The creation of the welfare state was his overwhelming moral and political priority.”

The nationalization of a “key slice” of British industry (“including the railways, some road transport, gas, coal, iron and steel, the Bank of England . . .”) and the “crippling taxes he promoted” eventually proved disastrous and resulted in Britain’s “inevitable” decline to “lesser-power status.” It remains so today.

The author finally states that although the costs of the new National Health Service and his other “reforms instantly spiraled beyond what had been anticipated, Attlee won the day because he had “irrevocably committed Britain to the welfare state he believed to be an ethical imperative . . . .” Although Margaret Thatcher turned back the socialist model in Britain to some extent a generation later, Attlee’s legacy lives on.

What will Obama’s legacy be at the end of the day? We shall see.

2010 AND MICHAEL STEELE

2010-01-18T13:03:00.000-08:00

As stated recently by Mark Z. Barabak in the January 1, 2010, edition of the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Republicans are “poised” for a “strong comeback” in the 2010 midterm elections, with a good chance for significant gains in the Congress; and to increase their numbers in the statehouses across the country as well. All 435 House seats, 36seats in the Senate, and the governorships of 37 states are on the ballot in November; and the Democrat and Republican candidates are locked in a tight race on January 19 in a special election to replace the late Senator Edward Kennedy in Massachusetts.

Some of the Democrats’ most prominent figures, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, appear to be in serious danger in their reelection bids, while longtime Democrat stalwarts, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut (trailing badly in the polls) and Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, have both announced that they will not seek reelection this year. Currently, Democrats hold a 256-178 advantage in the House of Representatives, with one vacancy; and Republicans need to win 40 new House seats to gain a majority. In the Senate, Democrats currently hold a 58-40 advantage, with two independents. Republicans would need to pick up 11 seats in the Senate to retake control of the upper body.

Recent polls on the issues of the day confirm that Republicans are poised for a comeback; and it is a fact that since World War II, the political party of a new President has lost an average of 16 House seats in the midterm elections, a handful of governorships, and more that 200 legislative seats. Historically, the parties have come out close to even in Senate races.

Karl Rove and the Ipsos/McClatchey polling company tell us that 1) Democrats have lost their advantage on important issues (down from 39% in 2008 to 4% in 2009 on health care; down from 30% in 2008 to 1% in 2009 on the economy; and down from 17% in 2008 to a plus 2% for Republicans in 2009 on taxes). Furthermore, they tell us that “voters are increasingly wary of activist government” (fewer voters believe government should spend more to help needy people [down from 54% to 48% since 2007] and more Americans believe government can be trusted only “some of the time” [up from 66% to 72% over the past year]).

Finally, Rove tells us that “the intensity gap has closed”, citing the BATTLEGROUND POLL that found that the number of Republicans and independents who are “extremely likely” to vote in the next election rose, respectively, from “6 to 9 points over the past year”; while Democrats “extremely likely to vote” in the next election slipped from 66% to 64% during that same period. Likewise, a PEW POLL found that 39%of Republicans would be angry if current reform proposals are enacted, while only 22% of Democrats would be “very happy” if they succeeded.

Despite all of this good news for Republicans, I note that GOP Chairman Michael Steele stated recently that “Republicans won’t win back the House in the fall elections and might not be ready to lead even if they do.” (Assoc. Press, Jan.6, 2010). These remarks predictably did not sit well with the GOP National Congressional Committee, which is charged with recruiting and raising money for Republican Congressional candidates. The NRCC immediately issued a statement that “we are playing to win”, and complaints were made to Chairman Steele’s office by congressional staffers and consultants. By contrast, Steele’s remarks delighted Congressional Democrats, who issued their own statement: “If the NRCC hasn’t convinced the Republican National Committee Chairman they can win, it’s no wonder that Tea Party activists, Republican small donors, and Republican House members are not confident and have failed to invest in the NRCC.” Incredibly, Mr. Steele responded: “I’m the chairman. Deal with it”(WASHINGTON POST, Jan.9, 2010) adding …”if you don’t want me for the job, fire me. But until then, shut up. Get with the program or get out of the way”.(Ben Smith, THE POLITICO, Jan.7, 2010).

I have stated several times that serious divisions in the party leadership, Democrat or Republican, lead to lost elections. It is certainly in the best interests of Congressional Republicans to support and cooperate with the leadership of the Republican National Committee; but it is an absolute must for the Chairman of the Republican National Committee not only to marshall all available RNC resources in support of Republican Congressional candidates, but he must APPEAR to fully support the Republican Congressional leadership as well. This is especially true with Congressional elections on the horizon, where Republicans are poised to make historic gains that could derail the Obama juggernaut. To do otherwise suggests that someone has lost sight of what is in the best interests of the Republican Party and the nation. This problem needs to be fixed – and fast.

BRIT HUME

2010-01-11T13:53:00.000-08:00

Little did I know when I attended church services yesterday that the minister of my Evangelical Presbyterian Church would speak out in support of Brit Hume, the longtime news anchor of the FOX NEWS NETWORK, who retired several months ago but remains as a network contributor and pundit. As many are aware, Brit was asked to comment on the dilemma facing Tiger Woods, who now rivals Jack Nicklaus as the greatest golfer to ever play the game; but who recently suffered humiliating international exposure as a serial adulterer, which resulted in serious damage to his marriage and career. In response to the questioner, Brit stunned many when he first spoke of his admiration for Tiger Woods over the years, and then stated: “[h]e’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn your faith – turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

It should be noted that, according to my sources, Tiger Woods’ mother was a Buddhist, but it is unclear whether he is a practicing Buddhist. It should also be noted that Brit Hume’s son, a twenty-eight-year-old journalist, committed suicide a few years ago, and that Brit has spoken publically concerning his faith and the outpouring of love and affection he received after that tragic event.

The response of the media intelligentsia to Hume’s public advice to Tiger Woods was immediate and brutal. Although heretofore widely respected as a thoughtful and highly professional journalist, Brit was suddenly branded as a religious fanatic. Tom Shales of the WASHINGTON POST blasted Hume’s remarks as utterly inappropriate for a news show and suggested that his “dissing” of Buddhism calls for a public apology. Buddhist journalist Barbara Hoetsu O’Brien, a former Christian, admitted in her recent blog dated January 4, 2010, entitled “Let’s Forgive Brit Hume”, that Brit was in fact correct when he stated that Buddhism does not offer forgiveness and redemption the way Christianity does. She goes on to say that….”Buddhism has no concept of sin; therefore, redemption and forgiveness in the Christian sense are meaningless in Buddhism.” However, she further states that Buddhists do believe strongly in the concept of loving kindness, which should be extended to all that have wronged us. She also added that Christians should not give advice on how to deal with adultery or sexual improprieties, given their poor track record on the subject.

According to conservative columnist Ken Conner, “Buddhism is a non-theistic religion that might be better described as a school of philosophy; it does not speculate on the existence of God and certainly does not embrace the idea that man is connected to the Creator of the Universe through the person of Jesus Christ.”

Some have written that since religion is such a deeply personal issue, it was wrong for Brit Hume to publicly discuss or suggest what Tiger Woods should believe, or how he should deal with his problems from a religious standpoint. Still, given the enormous amount of publicity (world-wide) the Tiger Woods scandal has generated, it was not out of line for someone such as Brit Hume, in the editorial portion of a news program and who had experienced the power of Christ in his own life, to publicly suggest, upon being questioned on the subject, that a troubled young man facing the loss of his family and career might do the same.

While, as stated by Conner, the kind of “theological certainty” displayed by Brit Hume on national television in this era of “post-modern religious relativism” may have made some uncomfortable, he is “one of the few willing to offer the beleaguered athlete an authentic path to restoration” while “everyone else is speculating on how Tiger might strategize his way back into the nation’s good graces.”

"Kings Of Tort" - Part II

2010-01-04T17:06:00.001-08:00

The “sordid tale of judicial bribery and political intrigue” as related to us in “Kings of Tort” proves once again that fact is stranger than fiction and more gripping than any John Grisham novel. Throughout this notable book are many notable quotes which are worth remembering, for example:

1. “[W]hat I call the ‘magic jurisdiction…[is] where the judiciary is elected with verdict money….It’s almost impossible to get a fair trial if you’re a defendant in some of these places. The plaintiff lawyer walks in there and writes a number on the blackboard, and the first juror meets the last one coming out the door with that amount of money….The cases are not won in the courtroom. They’re won on the backroads long before the case goes to trial.”

- Excerpt from speech by Dickie Scruggs entitled “Asbestos for Lunch” – 2002.

Note: Federal Prosecutor Tom Dawson commented that this could be the first time in American Criminal Jurisprudence that a defendant confessed to his crime five years before he committed it.

2. “Mr. Minor has the money, and judges have to run for election.”

- Statement by Mississippi Gulf Coast Chancery Judge J. M. Randall after his resignation from the bench, upon being asked why he did not take appropriate action against Attorney Paul Minor’s heated ex parte communications with him (while a case were pending where Mr. Minor was attorney for one side and outside the presence of the opposing lawyers).

3. “You could file briefs on a napkin right now and get it granted.”

- E-Mail from Zach Scruggs on May 29, 2006, in regard to the Wilson v. Scruggs litigation after Ed Peters had been hired to influence Judge DeLaughter.

4. “Boys, don’t mind the mule, just load the wagon.”

- Judge Henry Lackey – 2007 (after prosecutors became concerned what toll would be taken on the older man when he became an undercover witness during the efforts of Tim Balducci to corruptly influence him).

5. “If you cooperate, you may get to see your children graduate from high school as a free man.”

- Prosecutor Tom Dawson to Tim Balducci – 2007

6. “When you know Dickie and how successful he has been, you could not believe he would be involved in such a boneheaded bribery scam that is not in the least bit sophisticated. I don’t believe it. I hope it’s all proven wrong.

- John Grisham

7. “Zach is innocent of the charges pressed against him, and we look forward to his exoneration.”

- Former Attorney General Mike Moore in a statement to the press just days before his client, Zach Scruggs, pleaded guilty to a felony.

8. “…as one person who wrote a letter said, he thought sending you to prison would be a waste of the taxpayer’s money. To alleviate any concerns for that person, the taxpayers won’t have to pay for your incarceration; you’ll pay for it yourself.”

- Judge Neal Biggers to Dickie Scruggs at sentencing – June 27, 2008

9. “Money is like seawater…the more you drink the thirstier you become.”

- Roman proverb

10. “DeLaughter was ruined not by greed, but by ambition and the inability to say no to Ed Peters, his mentor, another professional infected with the Scruggs evil.”

- The authors of “Kings of Tort”

11. “Every society gets the criminals it deserves.”

French criminologist Alexander Lacassagne

One of the most obvious questions in regard to the events described in “Kings of Tort” is why persons worth millions of dollars would take the risks as described in this book? I will leave it to the authors to have the final word about Dickie Scruggs:

“Regardless of his motivation, the damage he and his cohorts caused to the judicial system, their profession, and the rule of law is palpable. While scholars debate which founding concept of our country is the most important – individual freedom, free market capitalism, private property rights, or the ability to make contracts and engage in commerce – the glue that holds all of these principles together is the rule of law. What the system guarantees is not justice, but a chance at justice. When the citizenry loses confidence that the legal system will provide a venue for a fair and even-handed airing of their grievances, cynicism abounds and ordered society is in peril.”

"Kings

2010-01-04T17:06:00.000-08:00

"KINGS OF TORT"

2009-12-28T16:28:00.000-08:00

I trust that everyone of us enjoyed a meaningful Christmas in 2009 and, upon reflection and taking stock of our lives, are looking forward to a happy (and prosperous) New Year. Christmas should always be a time of faith, family, and love, and I hope that your Christmas found all of these elements in place.

I received several interesting and valued gifts for Christmas, but two books that I received stand out: Sarah Palin’s “Going Rogue”; and “Kings of Tort”, by Alan Lange and Tom Dawson. Since none of our three children or six grandchildren were with us on Christmas Day, and because Beverly had a touch nausea (probably because of too much pre-Christmas travel, cooking, present-wrapping and anticipation of after-Christmas visits), I spent much of the day reading “Kings of Tort” – a very detailed account of recent events which exposed sordid tales of judicial bribery and corruption, and political intrigue within the Mississippi judicial system, and which were covered extensively by the national media outlets. As stated on the book’s back cover, “Kings of Tort”…”features the story of Dickie Scruggs, who was largely credited with bringing down Big Tobacco in the early 1990s. From his ascent to a net worth of nearly a billion dollars to his seemingly unfathomable downfall stemming from his role in improperly influencing two local judges to influence cases involving fee disputes with other lawyers, the book documents how those in Scruggs’s own trusted circle of tort barons turned on him and cooperated with federal authorities. It also shows the political influence he wielded with judges, attorneys general, and even his own brother-in-law, former U.S. Senator Trent Lott.”

When I first heard that “Kings of Tort” was to be published, my initial thought was that the book would simply be bringing up old, painful news that most Mississippians would like to leave in the past, particularly since it dealt with public officials and public figures (and their families) that had been friends and colleagues of many of us. However, after reading the first gripping pages which recounted the actual FBI-wired conversations between attorney Tim Balducci and Dickie Scruggs; and the conversations between Balducci and Dickie’s two young associates (Zach Scruggs and Sidney Backstrum); as well as the account of how the attempted bribery of Judge Henry Lackey actually took place, I knew that “Kings of Tort” was an important work

Lange, who operates one of the largest political websites in the southeast, and Dawson, a 36-year veteran federal prosecutor who served as lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of the Scruggs cases, have presented us with an important work because their book chronicles several serious attempts to corrupt the judicial system of one of America’s fifty states, and all of these attempts (some of which were successful) were full scale attacks on the rule of law – the glue that holds together our ability to function as a nation.

I strongly recommend “Kings of Tort” as a “must read” for all Americans who are interested in maintaining the rule of law in our great country and do not subscribe to the theory that “the ends justify the means” when attempting to bring about social change or accomplish some otherwise noble goal.

I will have more to say about “Kings of Tort” and Sarah Palin’s “Going Rogue” in the coming weeks. All of us are interested in the great issues that confront us each day on the news from Washington – the health care debate, for example. There will be time enough to discuss those issues in the days ahead, but in my opinion we can learn much from an analysis of our recent history as seen through these two important books.

Happy New Year, everybody.

THE BLUE DOGS - PART III

2009-12-15T12:28:00.000-08:00

In my last Post (The Blue Dogs – Part II), I posed the following questions:

Does the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition in the United States House of Representatives, including Congressmen Travis Childers (MS-1) and Gene Taylor (MS-4), serve some legitimate purpose that is good for America?

Do the Blue Dogs, regardless of their claim that they are for lowering the national debt, simply “facilitate” the activities of their extremely liberal Democrat Leaders in the House of Representatives, allow those leaders to hold on to power in the Congress, and also allow them to continue their reckless onslaught on the American Free Enterprise System ( in the same sense that a person who continues to make drinks available to a known alcoholic “facilitates” the alcoholic’s dependence on liquor)?

Do the Blue Dogs really serve as a check against their national Democrat leaders, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or do we have the Blue Dogs to thank for the present liberal array of House of Representatives Committee Chairmen that are dedicated to a massive restructuring of our federal government and increased government control of our daily lives?

In considering these questions, we must first define a few terms. According to WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY (Second College Ed.), the term “facilitate” is defined as “to make easy or easier”. The term “facilitation” means “increased ease of performance of any action”; and a “faciliter” is one that makes another’s job or performance easier.” On the other hand, one who is in “complicity” with another, according to WEBSTER, is a “participant”, or “in partnership in wrongdoing”.

Based on a casual glance at the website of THE BLUEDOG COALITION, its leaders proudly boast that the coalition has injected a “moderate” viewpoint into the Democratic Caucus in the United States House of Representatives; and that since 1996, “24 Blue Dogs won their seats by defeating a Republican incumbent.” There is no doubt that the efforts of populist Democrats to unseat conservative Republicans in diverse Congressional Districts have hurt the efforts of The Republican Party to maintain working control of the House of Representatives, but there is little evidence, if any, to show that the Blue Dog Democrats have had any significant effect on the liberal agenda of their Party. Instead, the evidence is crystal clear that these Blue Dogs have done little more for their country than to cast their votes for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House of Representatives. They are then routinely ignored by their Party leaders unless their votes are needed in close party-line votes to support the agenda of the Speaker, although some have been effective in bringing home large amounts of “pork” for their Congressional Districts, thereby ironically increasing the national debt.

Just as a “friends” or others often feed the habit or desires of one inflicted with the disease of alcoholism, the Blue Dog Democrats routinely feed the excessive desires and spending habits (and support the pacifist views) of their national Democrat leaders in Washington by continually voting to keep them in power in the Congress. Our mothers always told us that we are known by the company we keep. Travis Childers, Gene Taylor, and the other members of the Blue Dog Coalition keep company with Nancy Pelosi and her extremely liberal House Committee Chairmen, as well as with Joe Biden and Barack Obama. They should not be allowed to successfully talk the conservative talk at home in the 2010 congressional elections, when they vote to support their Party leaders who are trying to create a new world order and walk the liberal walk in Washington.

THE BLUE DOGS - PART II

2009-12-07T13:11:00.000-08:00

As was stated in the last installment of this blog, Wikipedia tells us that the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition is “a group of 53 moderate and conservative Democrats committed to financial and national security, favoring compromise and bipartisanship over ideology and party discipline.” But are they really committed to financial and national security? And do they really favor compromise and bipartisanship over ideology and party discipline? Or are they perpetrating a massive hoax and posturing to convince the electorate that they are something that they are not? Are they really sailing under false colors in order to save their political skins in demographically diverse congressional districts?

Mississippi Democrat Congressman Travis Childers (MS-1) certainly hopes that his constituents view him as “bipartisan” and favoring compromise over ideology and party discipline. When he campaigned in a special election a year ago to succeed Roger Wicker (who was appointed United States Senator by Governor Barbour to replace the retiring Trent Lott), Childers worked hard in Mississippi’s First Congressional District to portray himself as a populist in the mold of one of his earlier predecessors, Democrat Congressman Jamie Whitten, who was Chairman of the powerful House of Representatives Appropriations Committee during Mississippi’s “one-party days” when there was no viable Republican Party in the State. Whitten often boasted that he could “bring home the bacon” for Mississippians with projects such as the mega-expensive Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, which was envisioned at the time as destined to bring thousands of new jobs to the economically depressed northeastern region of the Magnolia State and other regions of the country as well.

Since Childers’ election after a nasty Republican Primary that left Republicans divided in a conservative district that has voted consistently for Republicans in past national elections, he has publicly stressed his independence from The Democrat Party’s national leadership and has tried to position himself, although a Democrat, as not subservient to party discipline in matters’ such as health care, that are of importance to his district.

Mississippi’s First Congressional District is racially diverse. While a substantial majority of its voters are white, middle class and blue collar, and live in the northeastern portion of Mississippi in the foothills of Appalachia, a substantial portion of its citizens are African-Americans, many of whom live farther west in the flat lands of the Mississippi Delta along Highway 61, the famous “Blues Highway”.

In winning his election last year, Childers cobbled together enough voters from the predominantly white and conservative eastern portion of his District to go with his far more liberal constituency from the Mississippi Delta. Many Republicans, bitterly divided after a bloody primary battle, stayed home and did not vote in the general election. Whether Congressman Childers can hold his coalition together in the 2010 Congressional Elections, in the aftermath of the tumultuous events that have taken place at the national level under the leadership of President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress, remains to be seen.

Next week, we will discuss whether Blue Dog Democrats such as Congressman Childers serve some legitimate purpose when they present themselves as “bipartisan” and as “conservative Democrats”. Is the Blue Dog Coalition good for America, or are the Blue Dogs simply “facilitators” that allow the extremely liberal national Democrat leadership to hold on to power in the Congress? Are they really conservative Democrat Dogs that are left out in the cold by their colleagues and turn blue in the process? Or are they really wolves in Blue Dog clothing? We will draw some conclusions, based upon the evidence, in our next installment (The Blue Dogs – Part III).

THE BLUE DOGS - PART I

2009-11-25T09:04:00.000-08:00

According to Wikipedia, the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition in the United States House of Representatives is currently a group of 53 “moderate-to-conservative Democrats…favoring compromise and bipartisanship over ideology and party discipline”. This organization within the Democratic Party was first created in 1995 and, although “clearly not Southern, some view the Blue Dogs as political successors to a now defunct-in-name Southern Democratic group known as the Boll Weevils…” Again according to Wikipedia, Blue Dog Democrats are sometimes defined as being “choked blue” by “extreme” Democrats from the left, or Congressmen that, when left “outside in the cold, turn blue”

With the 2010 congressional elections on the horizon and clearly on the radar screens on both major political parties, a close look at the Blue Dogs, what they stand for, and where they get their funding, is timely and important. Much is riding on the 2010 Congressional elections. Although former Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O’Neal once said that “all politics is local,” the implications of the 2010 elections are national in scope. With President Obama and his associates, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid, apparently transfixed on the notion that capitalism has failed and that the United States should be transformed into a quasi-socialistic society where fifty percent (50%) or more of the nation’s economy should be driven by government-run or supported institutions and services, those who we elect to Congress in 2010 could very well determine whether America, and the principles that made the country great to begin with, will survive as we have known it in the past.

Reagan and his followers have said at one time or another (1) that government is best that governs least; (2) hard work is the key to success in life; (3) each person is responsible for his own actions; and (4) we are not just a bunch of special interest groups that call ourselves Americans, but we are one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. These are the principles that should drive us as we select who to send to Congress in 2010. All politics should not be local next year.

As stated by Wikipedia, it has been my experience that Blue Dog Democrats, particularly in the South, like to portray themselves as non-ideological and as Congressmen who can “bring home the bacon” to their constituents. But a larger question in 2010 is whether these Blue Dogs can stand up to their Democratic leaders that want to remake America. Can they as Democrats, help fight the war in Afghanistan to win; fight hard and openly to defeat the efforts of their leaders to socialize our institutions, nationalize our health care system, and raise our taxes? Are those Blue Dogs who ask to be elected or returned to Congress willing to state publicly that they will not only abstain but will vote against Nancy Pelosi in her bid in 2010 to remain as Speaker of the House of Representatives? Will they organize with the Democrats and insure that radical Democrat Congressmen such as Barney Frank (D-Mass) and Charlie Rangel (D-NY) remain as Chairmen of the key committees in the House of Representatives; or will they support the Republicans when the House is reorganized? These are legitimate questions that should be asked of Blue Dog Democrats in their races against Republican opponents next year.

There are two Blue Dog Democrat Congressmen in Mississippi who will stand for re-election in 2010. In our next post, we will examine their races and what the Blue Dog Coalition really stands for.

Happy Thanksgiving everybody.

CINDY PHILLIPS

2009-11-16T15:05:00.000-08:00

A milestone quietly occurred here last week within the ranks of the Mississippi Republican Party when long-time Republican activist Cindy Phillips announced that she was stepping down as the Mississippi National Republican Committeewoman, effective January 15, 2010. Cindy was first elected National Committeewoman in May, 2000, and has served effectively and with distinction since that time.

I had the pleasure and privilege, as her County Republican Chairman, to second Cindy’s nomination to be the National Committeewoman at the 2000 Republican State Convention; and I remember it well. Senators Thad Cochran and Trent Lott, as well as Congressmen Roger Wicker and Chip Pickering, had all just made speeches and were sitting on the front row, with approximately 1000 Republicans in attendance.

State Senator Bill Hawks (later the United States Undersecretary of Agriculture) made the nominating speech for Cindy and talked about her longtime selfless service to the Party and her wise counsel to him when he ran for Lieutenant Governor of Mississippi. In my remarks, I spoke of how she had found time to help me find Republican poll workers in three remote Madison County precincts which had to be selected only a few days before the State Convention, while at the same time she was engaged in a tough election campaign for National Committeewoman. Dede Baxter of Lucedale gave another seconding speech for Cindy that day and recalled how Cindy, as President of the Mississippi Federation Of Republican Women, had helped her form a Republican Women’s Club in Lucedale and George County, a sparsely populated County near the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

After her resounding election victory through the votes of the State Convention Delegates, Cindy pledged to be an active National Committeewoman and do all that she could to grow the Republican Party in Mississippi and nationally. She has fulfilled her pledge in countless ways, travelled to remote places, and has mentored hundreds of Republican men and women on what it means to be a Republican and how to effectively promote Republican causes. She has also served with distinction as a member of the Republican National Committee and its Rules Committee; and was my trusted adviser during my tenure as State Party Chairman whenever big decisions had to be made.

In short, Cindy Phillips is the quintessential American patriot – one who loves her country and remains convinced that the Republican Party is the best vehicle to maintain those principles that made our country great Thanks, Cindy, for a job well done; and thanks, also, for the memories.

VIRGINIA AND NEW JERSEY

2009-11-09T17:33:00.000-08:00

Prior to the gubernatorial elections which were held on November 2, 2009, Larry Sabato, the widely respected University of Virginia professor of political science and political observer, was quoted as saying:

“If the GOP should win both New Jersey and Virginia, then there will be a longer and more pro-Republican spin put on the off-off-year elections, and the commentary will last longer – possibly enabling Republican candidate recruiters for 2010 to score some big catches.”

Karl Rove, in a pre-election analysis, said:

“Tuesday’s election will provide the most tangible evidence so far of how strong a backlash is building and just how frightened centrist Democrats should be of 2010.”

The dust has now settled after Republicans scored convincing wins in Virginia and New Jersey. Republican Bob McDonnell won his election for Governor in Virginia by a startling 17.4 points and in New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie won by a convincing 4.2 points in what was expected to be a very close race, despite being outspent by a 3 to 1 margin. These Republican victories are especially significant because only one year ago, President Obama carried New Jersey easily with 57% of the vote and also won Virginia with 53% of the vote. It is also noteworthy that Virginia is the home state of the current Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who also serves as the current Governor of the State.

In the aftermath of the election, Karl Rove wrote in the November 4, 2009, edition of the WALL STREET JOURNAL:

“Tuesday’s elections should put a scare into red state Democrats – and a few blue ones, too.” (He also noted that Republicans swept six of seven statewide contests in Pennsylvania as well).

Karl’s basic analysis was that on November 2, suburban and independent voters moved to the GOP (13 points in Virginia; 12 points in New Jersey; and 8 points in Pennsylvania), where they had voted in much larger numbers for Obama one year earlier. His final conclusion was that “[e]ven a five point swing in 2010 could bring a tidal wave of change…[ in the 2010 congressional elections].” Senator Joe Lieberman (D.-Conn.) seemed to confirm Karl’s analysis when he stated that there was “a very large and quick move of independents” away from the Democratic Party and that public fears of the rising debt are at a “tipping point”.

Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi, who is also Chairman of the Republican Governors’ Association (RGA) stated:

“Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie proved that voters everywhere are looking for leaders who focus on growing jobs, keeping taxes low, and strengthening the economy. They showed that by focusing on pocketbook issues, Republicans can win anywhere in 2010.” It is noteworthy that the RGA invested more than $7 million in New Jersey and $5 million in Virginia, in the November 2 races.

In perhaps the most insightful commentary on the November 2 elections (“Voters are Desperate for Political Leadership”, WSJ, Nov.5, 2009), Dan Henninger wrote:

“Welcome to the permanent American Tea Party….That electorates in two politically significant states, led by the widening independent movement, could swing within one year from enthusiasm for electing Barack Obama [to support for two Republican gubernatorial candidates] is simply astonishing. Add another American metaphor to the political landscape: the cattle stampede. Independent voters across the U.S. have become like the massive cattle herd John Wayne drove from Texas to Kansas in ‘Red River’. These voters are spooked and on the run, a political stampede that veered left in November, 2008, and now right a mere one year later.”

Henninger also noted that in the nine months from the failure of Lehman Brothers to the bankruptcy and nationalization of General Motors, the American people were “riveted to news of economic distress.”

My take on all of this? I believe that Republicans, both here in Mississippi and nationally, have a huge opportunity to make a comeback in the 2010 congressional elections and that the voters want to place a check on the President and his associates, particularly Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Americans sense that the country has reached a long-term economic tipping point and are looking for stable political leaders that will not bankrupt the country. Unless Republicans can provide that leadership, the stampede will continue.

THE NEW YORK REPUBLICAN PARTY

2009-11-03T11:35:00.000-08:00

On the eve of two gubernatorial elections that have attracted national attention as possible barometers of the current popularity of the Obama Administration and the potential gains that Republicans might make in the all-important 2010 congressional elections, the special November 3, 2009, congressional election in upstate New York’s 23d District has suddenly burst on the scene and, in regard to the public’s interest, to some extent has eclipsed the New Jersey and Virginia Governors’ races. Liberal commentators and others have taken to the airwaves, as well as the print media, and the internet, in full force.

For example, a blog by Linda Hirshman in the DAILY BEAST (“How the GOP Loses Women”, Nov. 1, 2009) wrote:

“Former Republican congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava cried real tears Saturday as she conceded that right-wingers had pushed her out of the race. Even though her local party had picked her to run in Tuesday’s election…her support for abortion and gay marriage made her too liberal for the new national party. Insurgent Republicans, led by Sarah Palin and Glen Beck, mounted a candidate on the conservative line, and fought Scozzafava so effectively that she turned tail and ran. She then endorsed the Democrat.”

In another November 1 article in THE POLITICO (“Fiasco, N.Y. Republicans deliver again”) Alexander Burns states: “The collapse of Scozzafava’s campaign…is simply the latest calamity to befall the New York GOP and an illustration of the utter ruin into which the state party has fallen.” Burns correctly points out that Republicans now control just two of New York’s 29 congressional House seats, lacks a single statewide elected official, and represents “only a minority of both chambers of the state legislature – the first time since the New Deal that New York has had a Democratic governor and legislature.”

The results of all of the November 3d elections deserve a close look by those of us who wish to see a resurgence of the Republican Party nationally. However, before the dust settles after those contests have been decided, a short analysis should be made of how the New York Republican Party could handpick a congressional candidate whose views are so foreign to the views of rank- and- file Republicans in the 23d District.

It is true that the New York Republican Party has recently suffered defeat after defeat despite numerous scandals within the Democratic ranks (Governor Eliot Spitzer resigned after being implicated in a prostitution scandal; and his successor, David Patterson, promptly admitted to a history of extramarital affairs and drug use). Some say that the New York Party is a victim of being located in a region that has recoiled from George W. Bush and a conservative national party. However, I would offer a different view, based on many personal observations and recent conversations with a group of New York Republican Party leaders who were seeking advice on how to revitalize their organization. In these conversations, I was astonished to discover that in 2008, the New York Republican Party had only three (3) full-time employees and an annual budget of less than $500,000. During my tenure as Chairman of the Mississippi Republican Party, Mississippi had seven (7) full-time employees and an annual budget of over $1,500,000. The Florida Republican Party had over 60 full-time employees during the same period and an annual budget that dwarfed the budgets of New York and Mississippi combined.

These simple facts explain, loud and clear, what is wrong with the New York Party. It has no realistic party organization that listens to the people and can no longer provide a realistic support group for its candidates. Instead, it obviously relies on party bosses to select its candidates, rather than building the party from the ground up (which is when candidates APPEAR, rather than being chosen by the bosses).

When the New York Republican Party reforms itself and begins to raise real money for Party organization and its activities, Republicans will begin to win races once again. The good news is that this can happen rather quickly whenever the leaders of the Party become tired of losing and get serious.

NEWSPAPER BAILOUT

2009-10-27T11:19:00.000-07:00

In the aftermath of the billions of taxpayers’ dollars that have been spent on President Obama’s stimulus package, as well as bailouts for the nation’s financial institutions and automotive industries, I suppose that we should never be surprised over what will come next as the President and his congressional allies proceed to remake America to fit their own socialistic views. Still, I was astonished when I read the following headline of Michael O’Brien’s September 20, 2009, article in THE HILL, a Washington publication: “OBAMA OPEN TO NEWSPAPER BAILOUT BILL.” Surely, I said to myself, America has not come to this – where we must try to bailout newspapers or any other organization that takes our fancy, all in the name of “the vital interests of the nation”.

According to O’Brien’s article, United States Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) had introduced S.673, the so-called “Newspaper Revitalization Act”. This proposed legislation would provide tax relief to news organizations, such as the NEW YORK TIMES and others, if they would convert to nonprofit organizations with Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. In other words, if financially troubled news organizations would abandon the necessity of making a profit in order to exist, the government would come to the rescue. No doubt, the government would also impose restrictions or establish guidelines on what news could be reported or commented upon, just as it has established guidelines for the nation’s financial institutions and automotive industries.

President Obama was quoted as saying that he would be “happy to look at” the proposed legislation and that good journalism is “critical to the health of our democracy”. He was also “concerned” about the growing trend of reporting – especially the political blogs, which he stated result in “not a lot of mutual understanding”.

After reading O’Brien’s article, I put it aside for further consideration at some later date, hoping the whole concept would go away. Then, on October 21, 2009, I came across an article by Seth Lipsky in the WALL STREET JOURNAL entitled “ALL THE NEWS THAT’S FIT TO SUBSIDIZE”. He reported that Leonard Downie, a former executive editor of the WASHINGTON POST (and one who had once publicly refused to vote so that he would not be improperly influenced in his zeal to report the news) had issued a written report for the Columbia Journalism School and came out in favor of government subsidies for the press. His report was entitled “THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AMERICAN JOURNALISM”.

In reading Lipsky’s article, I learned that direct government subsidies are indeed given to newspapers in some European countries, and that advocates of such a practice argue that government support for news reporting should not be precluded “anymore than it has for the arts, the humanities, and sciences, all of which receive some government support”.

There is no doubt that many news organizations are suffering financially at the present time. There is also no doubt that a free press is vital to our society or that freedom of the press and free speech is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In my view, a free press cannot be maintained in any news organization that accepts government subsidies of any kind. Whether Senator Cardin’s proposed legislation (or any similar legislation) should receive serious consideration is a subject that all of our news organizations, both locally and nationally, should be questioned about. They should publically comment on the subject – loud and clear – before any attempt is made to pass such legislation and before the general public is made fully aware of the implications of this latest attempt to “reconstruct” America

REDISTRICTING - PART III

2009-10-16T08:21:00.000-07:00

REDISTRICTING – PART III

O Lord,

Let chaos ensue, so that thy servant might prosper. (Lawyer’s prayer)

It has been said that the redistricting process, through which controversies erupt among the political parties and various political factions in every state legislature, is a lawyer’s dream. And, in states which have bicameral legislatures, where the members fail to reach agreement on the reapportionment of both houses of the legislature (in compliance with one man, one vote guidelines), the courts will surely be asked to step in and do the job for them. The same is of course true for a unicameral state legislature as well.

Such a situation occurred in Mississippi in 1991, where, according to an article dated September 1, 2009, in the North Mississippi Daily Journal, “[r]acial politics, a speaker’s race and other factors prevented the Legislature from reaching agreement. The issue ended up in federal court with the legislators running in 1991 under the old districts and again in 1992 under the new districts.”

Court action was necessary again in 2001 when Mississippi lost a congressman and the boundary lines of Mississippi’s remaining four congressional districts had to be drawn, with each having roughly the same population figures. The Democratic House of Representatives in the State Legislature, and the Republican – leaning Senate, failed to reach agreement on congressional reapportionment and the courts, once again, drew the lines. However, the Democrats in 2000 and 2001 cleverly anticipated that the Mississippi Legislators would not agree on congressional redistricting and filed their lawsuit asking for judicial reapportionment prior to the time the legislators convened to consider redistricting. The Democrats also uniquely filed their case in the friendly confines of a heavily Democratic county judicial district and asked the locally elected judge to congressionally reapportion the entire State of Mississippi, should the legislature fail to agree on reapportionment when they convened months later.

After the Mississippi Legislature convened in 2001, the House and Senate deadlocked and failed, as anticipated, to agree on the new congressional boundaries. Another lawsuit was then filed by others in a federal court, and the State’s two major political parties were each named as defendants. The federal court was also asked to redraw the congressional boundaries.

All of the judicial maneuvering in 2001 resulted in two expensive trials - one before a local state court judge and the other before a three - judge federal panel. Both cases “went the distance” – one to the United States Supreme Court and the other to the Mississippi Supreme Court. Only after this titanic struggle were Mississippi’s current congressional boundaries finally drawn.

An ironic side show to the congressional litigation in 2001 occurred when the State Legislators did agree that year on the reapportionment of the Legislative Districts of their members in both the State House of Representatives and the State Senate. Through remarkable compromises among the legislative representatives of the two political parties and the Legislative Black Caucus, the Legislators drew crazy-quilt district lines for themselves that totally ignored regional and historic boundaries or geographical communities of interest.

The end result of the efforts of the State Legislators to redistrict themselves was shocking, to put it mildly. Over 100 “split voting precincts” were created in the legislative races in the Republican–friendly State Senate and over 400 such split precincts were created in the Democratic–dominated House of Representatives. Some of these “split voting precincts” were split four ways, which means that those precincts were split or fragmented in the legislative races to require four separate ballots for four separate legislative elections to be voted on in a single precinct, depending on the fragmented voter rolls prepared for that precinct – all in the name of the one man, one vote reapportionment guidelines. The end result, of course, was voter confusion, a nightmare for election officials, and an open invitation for voter fraud.

In summary, the Mississippi Legislature in 2001(also the year of the September 11, 2001 bombing of the World Trade Center)incredibly created Legislative Districts that resulted in split precincts in no less than one-fifth (1/5) of the State’s 2000 voting precincts. Additional precinct splits occurred later when the State’s 82 Counties were also forced to “reapportion” their local government boundary lines for the county elections occurring simultaneously with the legislative races.

Mississippians have had to live with the reapportionment actions of the Mississippi Legislature in 2001, and the same forces are in positions of leadership in the Legislature as they face a reapportionment of their Legislative Districts in 2011. Will the State Legislators in Mississippi in 2011, or the state legislators in any state, make statesman–like efforts to respect historical boundaries and geographic communities of interest as they approach redistricting in 2011 and 2012? Only their barbers and hairdressers know for sure.

MICHAEL STEELE

2009-10-07T11:26:00.000-07:00

I had intended to continue today my discussion of the redistricting process that will affect how we vote when the new census figures arrive in 2011. However, alarm bells went off for me when I read the October 5, 2009, article in the POLITICO by Manu Raju and Jonathan Martin, which is entitled “ GOP LEADERS TO MICHAEL STEELE: BACK OFF”. “According to multiple people familiar with the meeting”, several Republican leaders in Congress, including House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, delivered a “blunt message” to Michael Steele, recently elected Chairman of the Republican National Committee, to quit meddling in policy issues such as health care, and focus on fundraising, the upcoming governors’ races in New Jersey and Virginia, and other political matters.

According to “unnamed sources”, Steele was “taken aback” by the criticism of his actions and grew defensive in a “heated discussion”. He said that he was getting asked where the GOP stood on a range of issues and “wanted to respond to those questions.” Later, Republican Senators downplayed the differences of the participants in the meeting, but Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee stated that the “point” of the discussion was that elected Congressional Republicans should set policy, while the RNC’s role was to “create an environment in which Republicans can be elected to set policy.” He expressed confidence that Chairman Steele understood the proper role of the RNC and that…“ I think we see eye to eye on it.”

In a follow-up article in the POLITICO on October 6, 2009, Chairman Steele said that “the continuing unease over his leadership owed to some [Capital} Hill aides ‘who clearly had a bug up their you know what.”

Only those present know precisely what was said at that “private” session of our Republican leaders, which was apparently leaked to the press to further someone’s private agenda. However, one thing is crystal clear: if Republicans want to make large gains in the congressional elections in 2010, Congressional Republicans and the Chairman of the RNC (and their aides) must find a way to effectively work together to achieve that goal.

It is true that vast numbers of Americans are extremely upset and frustrated with the direction our country is taking under the leadership of the Obama Administration, both on the domestic front as well as in the foreign policy arena. Enthusiasm is building toward a consensus that we made a terrible mistake in the last election by placing our trust in leaders that wish to replace the principles upon which the nation was built with a socialistic form of government. Still, the people will not fully place their trust in 2010 in a political party where its leaders are not fully united and seem to be more intent on bickering among themselves, rather than on responding to the pleas of those attending the tea parties.

In the period leading up to the midterm congressional elections during the first term of the Clinton Administration, Congressional Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, sounded the alarm and trumpeted their “contract for America” – a clear manifesto of what they were for and what they were against. They were aided in this effort by Haley Barbour, who was serving at the time as Chairman of the Republican National Committee. There was no highly publicized internal bickering because they were united in an urgent effort to re-establish Republican principles and defeat the Democrats. The Congressional Republicans and the RNC Chairman embraced each other and praised each other. They were united.

The leadership and unity displayed by the Congressional Republicans and Haley Barbour during the Clinton Administration is the type of leadership we need today in Washington. Without it, the Republican Party – and the nation – will continue to suffer.

REDISTRICTING - PART II

2009-09-30T15:01:00.000-07:00

REDISTRICTING – PART II

A few days ago, I posted an article which reminded us that new population figures will probably be released by the U.S. Census Bureau in February, 2011. This new data will be used by state legislatures to create 435 new congressional districts and new legislative districts in every state legislature across America as well.

As I stated in my earlier post, this redistricting or “reapportionment” process takes place every ten years and must be based upon the “one man, one vote” doctrine espoused by the United States Supreme Court in BAKER V. CARR, the landmark decision rendered in 1962. This case ruled that each congressional district in each state must be roughly equal in population.

Subsequent rulings have established that state legislative districts in each state must have parity as well. For example, Mississippi has 122 members of its House of Representatives and 52 members of its State Senate. In these two bodies, all existing legislative districts must be recreated, based on population shifts, gains and losses during the past ten years in the existing districts.

The stakes are high as we approach the 2011 redistricting process, not just in Mississippi, but across the nation. The new congressional districts, to be created after the 2011 census data is made public, could easily determine whether the Republicans can make the necessary gains to weaken the power of the Congressional Democrats and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And, since the state legislatures in all fifty states will draw the new congressional districts, legislative redistricting will have a tremendous impact on future congressional elections as well. Legislative redistricting will also have a huge impact on state elections and will help determine which of the two political parties will maintain dominance in each state legislature for the next ten years.

In most states, legislative elections will not take place until 2012, well after the 2011 census data comes in. This lapse of time should give the legislative leadership of both political parties in most states a chance to reach some reasonable agreement as they work to recreate legislative districts based on one-man, one-vote guidelines. However, three states ( including Mississippi ) will have their legislative elections in 2011, and each legislator who runs for re-election in those states will likely make his/her intentions known before the new census data is released. Therefore, Mississippi Legislators, for example, will be trying to redraw legislative districts while they are running for re-election and will surely be trying to protect themselves and their personal election prospects when they vote on reapportionment. In such a volatile situation, political survival will be their main focus, as opposed to protecting regional and county boundaries in their districts. Moreover, the Democrats will be trying to recreate districts that will ensure that they maintain their dominance in the Mississippi House of Representatives, and the Republicans will surely be doing the same thing in the more Republican-friendly State Senate.

If the House and Senate legislative members fail to reach an agreement on redistricting in both houses, the courts will surely be asked to step in and reapportion the legislature. A lengthy court battle over reapportionment would be very expensive and could take years to complete.

Deadlock in the Mississippi Legislature over reapportionment has happened before, and the prospect that it could happen again is real. Such a result would not be in the best interests of the State or its people. More about that later in my next post: REDISTRICTING – PART III.

REDISTRICTING - PART I

2009-09-23T13:22:00.000-07:00

In early 2011, new population figures will be released by the U.S. Census Bureau. This information will be used by the State Legislatures across America to help them create not only new Congressional Districts in all of the United States, but new House of Representative and Senate Districts in every State Legislature as well. Typically, the formulation of new redistricting plans at the state and congressional level fall to the state legislatures, and, in certain states such as Mississippi where there is a history of civil rights conflicts, the redistricting plans must be approved as well either by the U.S Department of Justice or the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

This redistricting process takes place every ten years in the United States because, pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court decisions, legislative and congressional district boundaries must be drawn according to the “one man, one vote rule”, which means that all such districts within a state must be roughly equal – not in size, but according to population. In other words, territorial integrity is a thing of the past, and gone are the days when a legislator would typically represent one or more counties in a rural area and another representative or senator would represent one county in a metropolitan area. This process is, of course, a departure from the concept adopted by our founding fathers when they created the U.S. Constitution. In the Federal system, the number of Congressmen representing a single state is based roughly on that State’s population. On the other hand, each state, regardless of population, elects two United States Senators.

Most experts and constitutionalists agree that the “one man, one vote’ reapportionment guidelines handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court have had some positive results. Deeply entrenched regional control over the statewide political process has been replaced, in many instances, by elected officials that are more representative of the people they are pledged to serve.

Unfortunately, the one man, one vote reapportionment guidelines have also had negative effects. It is not unusual for disgraceful “gerrymandering” tactics to be employed in the extreme when a legislature is called upon to draw new district lines. And it is no secret that these new district lines are often drawn in total disregard to county or regional interests but solely because of racial and political power considerations.

Legislative and congressional districts in today’s world, as stated, have often been drawn to protect those presently in office, or to punish elected officials who are not in favor with the leadership or do not belong to the political party in power. The result has been a crazy-quilt maze of legislative and congressional districts across this country that ignores regional and county boundaries and is created for the sole purpose of maintaining power. A casual glance at legislative district lines in Mississippi and most states would surely confound most of the founding fathers and should concern even the most hardened and cynical politicians who fear for the welfare of the country.

There is a contorted legislative district in the Mississippi Legislature that is located on the Gulf Coast where it is said that one can throw stones into three states and the Gulf of Mexico without leaving the district. There must be a better way.

RELIGIOUS TRENDS

2009-09-15T07:33:00.000-07:00

Religious trends in America are important – and not just for ecclesiastical reasons. In his online newsletter, Karl Rove (who many refer to as the “architect” because of his spectacular success as a political advisor for President George W. Bush) presented to us a recent study by Trinity College in Connecticut, dated March 19, 2009, which concluded that the number of “non-religious”individuals in the United States is increasing dramatically. On the other hand, the number of “mainline Protestants” is steadily decreasing.

The Trinity College Study found that the number of Americans who stated that they have “no religion” increased from 8% in 1990 to 15% in 2008. During that same period, the number of “self-identified Christians” fell from 86% to 77%.

While these numbers are significant, the state-by-state and regional results are eye-popping. New England, where the electoral votes in every state went to Obama in the last Presidential election, now has the highest proportion of non-religious residents in the country. In Vermont, the percentage has risen from 13% in 1990 to 34% in 2008; in Massachusetts from 8% to 22%; and in Maine, from 11% to 25%.

It is also noteworthy that while the percentage of Catholics declined only slightly from 1990 to 2008 (26% to 25%), their numbers fell dramatically in the Northeast and Midwest. For example, Massachusetts (the home of John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic President of the United States), the Catholic proportion of the population dropped from 54% to 39%, while in Wisconsin, from 39% to 29%. Conversely, the Catholic proportion of the population has increased in the South and Southwest, probably due to Hispanic immigration (29% to 37% in California; and 23% to 32% in Texas).

In one of his March, 2009, newsletters, Karl Rove stated that the ongoing move towards a more secular America and the decrease in the number of mainline Protestants “…will have a tremendous impact on the nation’s culture and society.” I am certain that the impact Karl predicted in March, 2009, was felt in the November, 2008, Presidential elections and will continue to be felt in the future. This does not mean that Republicans should change their values, their message of economic and religious freedom, free from oppressive government control; or their support of a strong military and vigilant defense of the homeland. These messages continue to be endorsed by the great majority of the American people. What the poll numbers do tell us, however, is that in order to win nationally, Republicans must be united, more now than ever before.

The key to victory for Republicans in the future is unity - a real desire to defeat the Democrats rather than fight among ourselves, and articulate and credible candidates who can carry the Republican message to the people. The 2010 Congressional elections will be an important watershed event as we Republicans continue to fight the culture war and begin our march back from the wilderness.

HEALTH CARE

2009-09-08T13:10:00.000-07:00

It is my impression that many of our citizens are thoroughly confused and frightened when they listen to the ongoing debate over the proposed overhaul of our national health care system. Many Americans would like to find a way to improve the system, but they do not want to succumb to a government controlled health care system that could bankrupt the country and create more problems than it would solve. Most Republicans have stated that we should resist “socialized medicine” in this country, while most Democrats say that we already have a socialized medicine health care system that serves a large portion of our population. They say that a “universal” health care system is a right that all Americans are entitled to, regardless of the cost to the taxpayers.

As I tried to think through this issue, I concluded that it would be a good idea to have someone who has had first-hand experience with a socialized medical system in another country to describe his experiences with the system and how it compares with American system as we now know it. With these thoughts in mind, I turned to my old friend, John Eames, of Olive Branch, Mississippi, which is just south of Memphis. John is a native of England, where he served his country with distinction in the military in the years following World War II. He moved to the United States over twenty years ago and is a retired businessman and developer. During the last several years, he has been an active member of the Mississippi Republican Party – first on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and, after Katrina, as a member of the Madison County Republican Party Executive Committee in central Mississippi. He and his wife, Karen, recently moved to Olive Branch to be near her family.

I asked John to write to me and compare the differences in the English and American health care systems. His letter is as shown below, and I strongly recommend that you read it and send it to others. I am certain that John’s letter will give you great insight into what we will eventually be facing if we adopt the Democrat health care plan, or any significant part of it.

John M. Eames
8125 Rosemont Drive
Olive Branch, MS 38654

Tel: 662-890-7186 Fax: 662-890-7057

Cell: 662-812-8909
e-mail: firststateus@yahoo.com

September 2009

www.jimherring.ms

Re: Health Insurance and related topics

Dear Jim,

With the President and the Administration apparently setting out on a second push for “Obamacare” it seemed like an appropriate time to set out some thoughts from an expatriate “Brit” who experienced nationalized health care in England and is now a proud and happy American.

The National Health Service in UK (NHS) set out soon after World War II as a noble endeavor - universal health care for everyone. Unfortunately and with hindsight foreseeable, it did not take long to change and over the years has become a serious burden on the economy. It is now the largest employer nationally. There are more administrators than health providers. Further it does not provide the care and treatment that people expect and certainly not what we take for granted in the USA.

Under the NHS you can choose your General Practitioner as long as he/she is local. No house calls but office visits are fully covered. However if you need treatment from a specialist, or at a hospital be prepared for a long wait, sometimes a very long wait. At the age of 20 I was diagnosed with appendicitis, and told I could have surgery in 18 months. I still have my appendix at 79 years of age.

About ten years ago my sister needed hip surgery. She was in a lot of pain. To have the surgery under the NHS she would have had to wait an undetermined period of time. We calculated that the wait would be until she reached an age which actuarially would mean that she would not need a second replacement. Her BUPA insurance covered the procedure which was done promptly.

NHS hospital beds are always full. The staffs are overworked. Frequently the nurses are foreign and unable to converse with patients in English. Many of the hospitals are infected with “staph”. My sister recently declined treatment rather than stay overnight in hospital.

Next let me address the cost. Every citizen is covered from birth and starts paying premiums when they earn L5,200 per year. It is mandatory. No exceptions. Every subscriber/employee has approx. 10% deducted from their paychecks each month. In addition there is a 13% payroll tax on all employers. If you are self employed you pay both. Even though the total “take” of 23% covers Social Security as well as health insurance it is a heavy price to pay. Wow!

Add to this my understanding that there is not a fund in existence as there is for Social Security, Medicare etc. The monthly premiums have to pay all costs and expenses on a current basis.

Despite the cost, most citizens who can afford to enroll in private health care plans, such as British United Provident Association (BUPA). This means that they are paying twice - once to the NHS and also to a private insurer. I did so when I was in England, and members of my family who are still there continue to do so.

Dentists who practice under the NHS are scarce, and the treatment they give severely limited. My information is that you are entitled to a check up once every 10 months, and then only basic service such as extractions and fillings. No cosmetic work is covered. I paid for my dental work in UK but even that was light years behind the treatment available in USA.

Irrespective of whether you have private insurance, when an ambulance is called the patient will be taken to a NHS hospital. If the patient has private insurance he/she has to arrange to be transferred to a private hospital if that is their wish.

A few years ago my sister was involved in a serious accident which left her unconscious. A member of our family called and being her next of kin I flew over immediately. I found my sister, still unconscious lying in a NHS open orthopedic ward completely unattended, without even an IV for hydration. I knew she subscribed to BUPA and was able to have her transferred to a private hospital where she received good treatment in her own room. Happily she is still alive. Would she have been if left in the NHS hospital? We will never know.

To give credit where it is due, my granddaughter, who show jumps professionally, fell at a fence and the horse fell on top of her breaking her leg. She was taken by ambulance and admitted as an emergency. She received very good treatment at the NHS hospital. Her leg completely recovered and she was able to resume her show jumping career at which she has achieved an enviable share of success.

Turning to “Obamacare” I am not really sure what the full proposals are. Is anybody? However I do think there are improvements that should be made to our system. One that I consider essential is that health insurance must be portable, i.e. transferable between States and between jobs. Insurance must be obtainable on a national basis. We should be able to shop insurance companies in any state in order to obtain the cover we seek at the best possible price. This in itself will introduce the competition between insurance companies that does not exist under the present system that limits cover by State. It would be the same as auto insurance.

When my wife and I moved from Maryland to Mississippi we had a very difficult time finding health insurance for her due to “pre existing conditions”. Had the insurance been portable between States we would have been able to continue with the insurance she had had in Maryland for some years and the problem would not have arisen.
The same portability must also be available for insurance provided by employers. If an employee leaves for any reason he/she should be able to keep the insurance cover by assuming responsibility for payment of the premiums.

This raises another point. Employers get tax relief for the premiums they pay for their employees. Individuals do not get this relief. This difference should be addressed in any overhaul of health insurance.

I am not in favor of a “public option” whatever form it may take. It will inevitably become the insurer of last resort, and thus expensive for the government (taxpayers). Ultimately it will become mandatory, meanwhile having forced private insurers out of business.

Compulsion is not the American way. Americans prefer to have opportunity and incentives I came to the USA from England in 1981 attracted by the opportunities and work ethic. I appreciated the fact that I could work hard, make money and pay a reasonable fair share in taxes. These conditions did not exist in the UK.

An analogy I am fond of quoting - It is Friday afternoon and the factory is closing for the week. The workers are going home. In the UK the young worker sees the boss leaving in his Rolls Royce and says “I will get you down here.” In the USA as the boss leaves in his stretch Cadillac the young worker thinks “That is where I am going.”

I love America. I have had good times and hard times, but overall America has been good to me. In my late years I should like to give something back. If my life’s experiences can be useful I hope I will be called upon. I am not happy with the direction this country is presently headed but I know that with the right leadership it has the ability and resources to rebound. We must revert to fiscal responsibility. The deficits are unsustainable. No business, large or small, would survive if managed the way our economy is being administered. Overhaul of health care must not be allowed to add to the deficit.

One last thought - if Congress passes a “public option” as part of a health insurance overhaul, all members of Congress should have to enroll in it rather than continue to enjoy their current preferential plan.

Sincerely,

John

Senator Edward Kennedy

2009-09-01T13:22:00.000-07:00

I did not personally know Senator Edward Kennedy, although like millions of Americans, I have closely followed his noteworthy career of triumph and tragedy. Thanks to an extraordinary Inauguration ticket which I was given with the compliments of Senator Trent Lott, I was able to observe Kennedy at very close range for an extended period of time when George W. Bush was administered the oath of office as President of the United States for the second time.

In his later years, the Senator justifiably gained a reputation as a hard worker who was well informed on the issues coming before the Congress; and he was wildly popular among those that shared his paternalistic views of “noblesse oblige”. However, I was certainly no fan. Although he supported the nomination by Senators Eastland and Stennis of my old friend, Governor J.P. Coleman, to the United States Court of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit many years ago, Senator Kennedy more recently vigorously opposed the nominations of United States District Judge Charles Pickering and constitutional attorney Mike Wallace to that same Court. The fact that neither Pickering nor Wallace, both from Mississippi, was elevated to the Fifth Circuit was and remains a great tragedy. At long last, we Mississippians are fortunate that despite Kennedy’s opposition, Judge Leslie Southwick finally made it through the nomination process and now sits as a Judge on the Fifth Circuit Bench.

Senator Kennedy’s occasional eloquence, and his unbridled passion for centralized government control as the most effective way to improve the lives of the American people, made him a media darling and endeared him to the American Left – and made him an effective tool in the furtherance of their causes. By all accounts, he was also good company. Thus, he was able to strike deals or compromises with his Senate colleagues and to incrementally promote his liberal agenda.

I have read many articles and re-read passages from many of my books on the Kennedy family since Senator Kennedy died. I was particularly struck by the fact that he sent a letter to Pope Benedict in July, 2009, which was delivered by President Obama on his recent visit to the Vatican. The letter asked the Pope to pray for the Senator during his last illness, and the Senator cited many of his accomplishments while serving in the Senate, apparently as justification for his request. The letter, along with the Pope’s response through the Papal Office, were read at his graveside on national television.

One of my favorite articles on Senator Kennedy’s passing, which in my opinion gives proper balance to the Senator’s career and accomplishments, was written by columnist Cathy Young, of REAL CLEAR POLITICS, on August 28, 2009. It is entitled “KENNEDY’S BELIEF IN BIG GOVERNMENT”, and the link is shown below for your consideration.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/28/remembering_ted_kennedy_98078.html

CARLY FIORINA AND BARBARA BOXER

2009-08-25T14:29:00.000-07:00

According to a recent article in the August 22, 2009, Wall Street Journal, Carly Fiorina, the former Chairman and CEO of Hewlett Packard Company, has recently registered a campaign committee called “Carly for California”.

It is being formed, apparently, in preparation for Carly’s potential 2010 challenge against California’s longtime Senator Barbara Boxer, the Democrat super-liberal who recently publicly dressed down a U.S. Army Officer appearing before her Senatorial Committee for referring to her as “ma’am” instead of “Senator” in answer to one of her questions. As I recall, the Senator was caught on national television saying that she had spent many dollars earning the right to be addressed as “Senator” and was offended when the Officer instead referred to her as “ma’am”. (Apparently, the Senator had “forgotten” that soldiers are schooled to address their superiors as “sir” or “ma’am”, as a sign of respect for the position they hold).

According to July, 2009, Rasmussen Poll, Senator Boxer leads Ms. Fiorina by only 45% to 41% of likely voters in a match-up between the two. Although Republican Party registration in California fell to only 31.4% of voters in 2008 according to the Public Policy Institute of California, Democrats are taking the potential challenge to Senator Box seriously. Democratic Party registration in California has also fallen to 44.4% in recent years, and the percentage of independent voters has grown significantly.

At a time when California is confronted with huge and seemingly unsolvable economic problems, it is possible that the business credentials and a well financed campaign by Ms. Fiorina could have significant appeal to the voters in the Golden State. On the other hand, her removal as CEO by Hewlett Packard’s Board of Directors in 2005 is a negative. Her other potential negatives, according to the Journal, include the fact that she is moderate on social issues and is pro-choice on abortion. She would face a popular conservative Assemblyman in the Republican Primary if she wins.

Still, the idea of somehow defeating Barbara Boxer in California is an intriguing one, because Senator Boxer’s political base is the extreme left-wing of the California Democratic Party. Her defeat would send shock waves across the country and signal a resurgence of the Republican Party nationally.

I had the opportunity to meet and visit with Carly Fiorina at a small dinner held at the State Chairmen’s Republican Party Meeting in New Mexico in 2008; and I introduced her the next morning at the Meeting when she spoke on behalf of John McCain. She came across to me as a tough, no-nonsense businesswoman with a strong handshake; and she is an exceptionally effective stump speaker. As I listened to her speech, it was clear that she strongly believes in conservative business principals and would unquestionably be an effective and knowledgeable candidate on economic issues when California’s unemployment rate, as of July, 2009, stands at 11.9%.

The problem facing California Republicans in 2010 is the same problem facing Republicans in many states. In the upcoming Congressional elections, can Republicans find a way to temporarily reconcile their differences on social issues and join together to defeat the Democrats? Can they support their nominees in an enthusiastic and energized way, whether the Republican nominees are conservative or moderate? If Republicans are to make a comeback in the upcoming 2010 Congressional elections, Party unity is the key. As Benjamin Franklin said: “either we hang together or we will hang separately."

Robert Novak, R.I.P.

2009-08-19T10:07:00.000-07:00

Nationally syndicated columnist Robert Novak died Tuesday, August 18,2009. He wrote his last column in late 2008, in which he said that he was afflicted with a terminal illness and could not continue. Novak's column, when coupled with his writings in partnership with Roland Evans (the "Evans-Novak Political Report")became one of the longest running nationally syndicated columns in American History.

As chronicled in his memoir,THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS,Novak appeared on CNN's "Crossfire" and "The Capitol Gang". He later became a central figure in the Valarie Plamne CIA leak case, when he was the first to publish the name of the CIA employee in his column.

According to Bob Novak, he began his jounalistic career as a political moderate but became more conservative as time passed by. Although his column was not carried in our local newspapers in recent years, I was able to read it in the Memphis Commercial Appeal, which also served our community. As I read the news daily, I increasingly found that I would instinctively look for the Novak column to find out what was really going on in Washington. He was hard on liberals and conservatives alike and had a dislike for "hypocritical, posturing politicians". Still, he had a special respect for Ronald Reagan. In his book he stated: "Although I was no lapdog for Ronald Reagan, I applauded much in his Presidency - far more than any other President in my twenty-four years in Washington".

I met Bob Novak twice, once when he appeared with the Capital Gang at a party in New York honoring Clarke Reed, one of the founders of the modern Mississippi Republican Party; and then again when he spoke to a breakfast for Mississippians in Washington when George W. Bush was inaugerated President for his second term of office. His wife joined him on that occasion - again at the invitation of Clarke Reed, his longtime friend.

As much as I enjoyed reading Robert Novak's columns, I never really had any affection for the man until I read his Introduction to a re-published edition of WITNESS, by Whittaker Chambers, a non-herioc figure and an admitted member of the Communist Party in the first half of the twentieth century. Chambers eventually turned away from the Communist Party and exposed, in public hearings, the urbane and sophisticated Alger Hiss as a high-ranking employee of the State Department in Washington who was also clandestinely an active Communist.

In his Introduction to WITNESS, Novak stated that the struggles of Chambers, as written in that book, changed his life forever. In displaying his sympathy and respect for Chambers, who endured long and loud public denunciations throughout the public hearings in Hiss affair from many in Washington, Robert Novak revealed himself to be an American Patriot. R.I.P.

Republican Primaries

2009-08-12T13:59:00.000-07:00

In Mississippi, Republicans proudly claim seven of the eight statewide elected officials (in addition to both U.S. Senators and one of the four Mississippi Congressmen). They are:

Governor - Haley Barbour
Lieutenant Governor - Phil Bryant
Secretary of State - Delbert Hosemann
Treasurer - Tate Reeves
Auditor - Stacey Pickering
Insurance Commissioner - Mike Chaney
Commissioner of Agriculture - Lester Spell

All of these Republicans are outstanding public servants, and I am certain that some of them aspire to higher elective office during Mississippi's 2011 statewide elections. The problem they will face is how to engage in competitive Republican Primaries without spliting the Party and handing election victories to the Democrats.

Raucous Republican Primary elections are a relatively new phenomenon in Mississippi, but we had two recent Congressional races where the Republican Primary elections were violently acrimonious. In Mississippi's First Congressional District, the loser in the primary refused to endorse the winner, leading to a Democratic general election victory. In Mississippi's Third Congressional District, charges and counter-charges of fraud were the headline issues in the Republican Primary. In apparent disgust, Republicans nominated one of the candidates who declined to engage in mud-slinging - Gregg Harper of Brandon. Harper was ultimately sent to Washington after a general election victory over a weak Democrat and had a huge crowd at his election-night victory party.

Mississippi Republicans are justly proud of their statewide elected officials and of the progress their Party has made in recent years. But the vast majority of them do not want their statewide officials to act like Democrats and conduct ugly Republican Primary campaigns in their quest for higher office. Such a spectacle in our statewide elections, when most of our candidates are running, would split the Party, leave lasting scars, and inflict permanent damage from which the Party would not soon recover.

My advice to our 2011 Republican candidates is to ignore the consultants and staffers who have a private agenda and tell us that "politics is a contact sport, even in Republican Primaries." They also tell us that "negative campaigns win elections."

These statements may or may not be true in general election campaigning, but my guess is that in Mississippi, Republicans will not tolerate negative campaigning in the 2011 primary elections.

Greetings From Mississippi

2009-07-30T11:30:00.000-07:00

After having served on the Republican National Committee and as State Republican Chairman for Mississippi for almost eight years (and as a County Chairman for several years prior to that), I am pleased that the internet allows me to stay in touch with so many wonderful Republicans across the United States that I have come to know and have genuine affection for, as well my other friends and associates locally. Hopefully, many new friends will read this blog and share their thoughts with me as we begin the process of rejuvenating our Republican Party and rescuing our great nation from the downward socialistic spiral that it is now taking under the leadership of the Democrats and others who have lost their way. They wish to transform America into something similar to a European- style democracy that has an economy heavily dependent upon government, and we see evidence of this fact occurring before our very eyes with every daily newscast.

The purpose of this blog is to share with you my views and conclusions on how to rejuvenate our great Party; and to develop a dialogue with you on the subject. I support no candidate for national office at this time and am more interested in finding ways to rejuvenate the Party, because I know that is the key to winning elections in the years ahead. After many years of service to the Party, I have some concerns.

Perhaps a dialogue between ordinary Republicans, such as you and me, can also save us from the intrigues and destructive tactics of those special interest groups, lobbyists, “advisors”, and staff operatives within our own Party that have also lost their focus – those who would seek to destroy fellow Republicans who are perceived to stand in their way, and prevent them from gaining more power, access or financial reward. Theirs is the politics of destruction. Ours should be the politics of rejuvenation of the Republican Party. They act like Democrats, whereas we should be focusing on what is best for our country.

I am reminded of the comments a few years back of a great Mississippi Republican Governor who, on the occasion when our State Party had formally paid off the debt on our State Party Headquarters Building, said: “Governors come and go, but the Party is there forever.” What he meant, of course, was that the key to our political successes in the past has been the principles our Party stands for, and our unity of purpose. Once we regain our unity of purpose and once again embrace and publicly define our core beliefs, candidates such as Ronald Reagan with great personal magnetism will be encouraged that we have our act together and will appear once again to effectively communicate our values to others. I have found that the best candidates are not chosen. THEY APPEAR.

We rank and file Republicans must make clear to our existing Republican leaders that we will no longer tolerate ugly Republican Primaries, but are interested in what the candidates stand for. When this happens, destructive “leaks” to the press by campaign operatives against a Republican opponent or rival and general infighting among Republicans will diminish, just as surely as roadside bombings diminished in Iraq when General Petraeus instituted the “surge”. For example, we should never again tolerate the kind of treatment Sarah Palin received from operatives within her own Party after the last Presidential election. Whatever we might think of her as a future candidate for President, there should be no place in our Party for those who would commit such blatant violations of Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment. Our job is to compete with the Democrats, not fight among ourselves.

In the spirit of full disclosure, you should know that although I am no longer a member of the RNC, I publicly supported Mike Duncan for re-election as our National Chairman. However, that election is over, and we must help our new Chairman, Michael Steele, succeed.

It was my privilege to host Chairman Steele a few years ago, when he was Lieutenant Governor of Maryland and was in Mississippi campaigning for Haley Barbour when Haley first ran for Governor of our State. We spent a day together, had a nice luncheon in his honor, visited several talk-radio venues, and wound up the evening at the Clear Channel radio show of Charles Evers, a member of our State Executive Committee; where Michael made a great pitch to Mississippi African- Americans on the virtues of the Mississippi Republican Party and its candidate for Governor. Working together, we won that election, and we can win again across this great nation.

I look forward to visiting again with you soon, and please let me have your comments.