THE CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD

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

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?

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?

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

“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

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

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.